tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637Wed, 25 Mar 2015 17:23:19 +0000politicsmoviesamericagovernmentKansas CityreligionArtworkChristianityEnglishWaldo Rapistfounding fatherswriting2000sAbuse of PowerAvatarBatmanComicsDark KnightExecutive OrdersFrank MillerGTAGood Ol DaysGrand Theft AutoGrand Theft Auto 5Grand Theft Auto VJeffersonKCPDLOTRLord of the RingsMurder rateNowadaysPolicePrequelPresidencyRepublicansReviewsRockstarUnited StatesWashingtonabortionadvertisingamericanassociated pressatheismautismbaseballbatting averagebig oilborder warcapital punishmentcapitalismcensuscomic bookscopyrightdeath sentencedemocratdonationegoegyptenergyfaireyfan filmfoundersfox newsfree speechfundinggender neutralitygrammargun controlgun rightshaitihistoryillegal immigrantsimmigrationintellectual honestyjordankansaslawmexicomeyermiddle eastmissourimoneyballmovie reviewnovelsobamaoil spillon base percentagepartial-birthpartyrepublicanroyalssearches and seizuresspendingstepheniestorytellingtheaterstop 10tunisiatwilighttwo-party systemusavideo gamesOne Hit Killhttp://blog.onehitkill.com/noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)Blogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-6282084556909676761Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:33:00 +00002013-01-16T11:40:10.080-06:00gun controlgun rightssearches and seizuresBending the Bill of RightsI had more trouble finding the right words to open this post than for any other in recent memory. Looking at the other articles that mention the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre,&nbsp;opinion writers&nbsp;evidently and understandably feel&nbsp;obligated to voice&nbsp;their outrage at the killings&nbsp;and engage in some kind of emotional contest over who feels worse about it. It feels disrespectful not to express emotion. It certainly feels unnatural. Our feelings about this are why we're writing. I understand that these writers could&nbsp;explain their emotional response to the shooting and find themselves incapable of containing the terror I'm sure they feel.&nbsp;I could have followed the same path here. I may have been able to open this blog with an eloquent, respectful and emotional introduction, but it would have felt dishonest. I <em>am</em> emotionally distraught. I don't want to experience the nausea and chest pain I felt the day those children died. I won't be emotional here. I can't.<br /><br />Immediately after the massacre, most&nbsp;Americans didn't have the wherewithal to take up the mantle for or against gun control. In the ensuing&nbsp;weeks, however, virtually every newspaper has crowned the front page with articles on gun control.&nbsp;The President has publicly announced his intention to push through legislation that limits gun&nbsp;ownership. Gun statistics have been popping up in partisan propaganda, encouraging&nbsp;me to&nbsp;fend off false data on Facebook, forums and conversation (Only Factcheck.org published <a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/">an accurate and fair analysis of&nbsp;the gun debate</a>). Statistics hardly matter at this point. The argument consists almost entirely of emotional extremes, with gun-control advocates unleashing an impenetrable wave of outrage with single-minded disregard for data and gun-rights advocates who&nbsp;ferociously fight&nbsp;to maintain their right to own military-grade hardware and view the latest surge for gun control as an affront to their freedom and short-sighted contempt for the second amendment.<br /><br />This isn't an idle argument. Legislation determining the fate of gun ownership in the United States waits for the dust to settle.&nbsp;Several gun control advocates support a&nbsp;bifurcated, holistic&nbsp;approach to&nbsp;guarding against gun violence, which prevents the sale of firearms&nbsp;to the emotionally disturbed and also restricts access to everyone&nbsp;for&nbsp;the most lethal weapons. For many, the mass slaughter of kindergartners was more than enough to approve limitations on gun ownership and allow sharing of sensitive medical information about those who've shown violent tendencies. I oppose both measures.<br /><br />It's difficult to separate law-abiding citizens with potential anger issues from dangerous, homicidal medical patients, yet it seems that many are&nbsp;willing to limit the rights of innocuous groups to hopefully prevent the criminally insane from committing atrocities. Inefficacy aside, we cannot limit a person's rights because they are mad about something, whether about how unfair the world is or just having gone through a divorce or had a death in the family. We do not get to limit a citizen's rights based on his or her attitude. People are entitled to anger and are free to seek out mental health expertise to alleviate emotional distress without risking legal persecution. Shortly after the Columbine shooting, because I had always worn a black trench coat and drew violent pictures, I was pulled from&nbsp;British Literature&nbsp;by the school&nbsp;counselor. My sketchbook was seized.&nbsp;My mental state&nbsp;was&nbsp;evaluated. They interviewed my parents and&nbsp;teachers (who universally loved me, luckily). I never fought anyone. I never stole anything. I never threatened anyone. They had no viable reason to confiscate my property and subject me to a mental evaluation against my will. But they did.&nbsp;And perhaps this is exactly the sort of thing that would prevent me from legally purchasing a firearm for protection&nbsp;in the future if new measures are taken to limit gun sales.&nbsp;I still believe in the best in people and&nbsp;haven't murdered anyone despite remaining angry about the ordeal to this day.<br /><br />Since then, I've been an advocate for student rights and&nbsp;a defender of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">fourth amendment to the Constitution</a>. I <em>hate</em> when people suggest we legislate the acceptability of unreasonable searches and seizures and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act">it happens constantly</a>.&nbsp;Citizens have an inalienable entitlement to privacy that is incessantly&nbsp;threatened by those who think sharing&nbsp;the secret emotional vulnerabilities of individuals with public organizations, such as schools, is for the greater good.<br /><br />A few days after the Sandy Hook&nbsp;attack, the political right launched a preemptive attack against gun regulation by placing the blame of gun atrocities squarely at the feet of mental illness. Philip Terzian wrote the most obvious attack in his Weekly Standard Article, <i>In the Presence of Violent Psychopaths</i> (I'd link it, but it's behind a paywall). In it, he states:<br /><br /><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: black; display: inline !important; float: none; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Times,&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>For if you consider the perpetrators of recent incidents of mass murder—the Newtown tragedy, the subway killing, the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the 2007 horror at Virginia Tech—the one common thread is their self-evident insanity. To be sure, not all people with mental illness are violent, and not all violent people are insane. But we seem to tolerate the presence of psychotics in our midst, and regard their occasional explosions as a cost of liberty.</i></span></span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br /><br />He defends the indefinite detention of the mentally ill, as was done in the 1960s, even though the vast majority of the detainees were, by his own admission, <em>non-violent</em>.&nbsp;The United States legal system already faces serious problems from its zealous&nbsp;determination to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate">incarcerate more people than any other country</a> by a wide margin. Schools are administered <a href="http://www.timesuniononline.com/main.asp?SectionID=76&amp;SubSectionID=340&amp;ArticleID=70985">more like prisons</a> than learning institutions. Now, Terzian wants to detain even more citizens. For a country that&nbsp;flaunts its freedoms, we have an obsession with detaining people in as many ways as possible.&nbsp;&nbsp;Terzien and his supporters want to limit the rights of a large group instead of finding a more efficient way to deal with a problem.&nbsp;The government leaders continue to find ways to round up people who inconvenience them. They've found ways to round up <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/ex-bush-official-guantanamo-bay-innocent/">innocent Muslims</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070#Challenges_to_legality_and_constitutionality">innocent Latinos</a>, now it's proposed that we&nbsp;round up innocents with mental deficiencies, a cruel solution for those deserving compassion.<br /><br />Mental wards were closed down because of poor conditions, ineffectiveness, and, more frighteningly,&nbsp;they held people against their will&nbsp;after subjective diagnoses. Wrongful confinement was a well-known problem even back in the <a href="http://www.bbk.ac.uk/deviance/wrongconfine/intro.htm">1800s</a>, yet it persisted all the way <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatric_survivors_movement#1950s_to_1970s">into the&nbsp;1970s</a>.&nbsp;In that decade, <a href="http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/97/003/0013.htm">Mississippi</a> and <a href="http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-3/16-5-43/">Georgia</a> had to create state laws making it felonious to confine sane people to asylums. Despite improving ways to identify and&nbsp;treat people with chemical imbalances,&nbsp;insane asylums persisted through too much of the 20th century. Now, we have political pundits proposing the reinstatement of horribly failed policies and a majority of Americans support&nbsp;proposed legislation that will widen the parameters to deny freedoms to citizens who have done <em>nothing</em> wrong.<br /><br />Those in favor of gun control place confidence in what they believe is a "common sense" position:<em> less guns equals less violence</em>.&nbsp; The facts do not&nbsp;support the claim, but nonetheless, the leaders of the movement&nbsp;commit to the colossal undertaking of constructing an appealing narrative, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/">bending stats</a> and ignoring data. If they would submit to reality, they would see the enormous amount of data showing that guns do not make people more violent, they don't cause more crime, in fact, they reduce it, and stricter gun control fails to curb violence because guns were never the catalyst in the first place. An argument thrown around lately is that guns make a killer more efficient. Interestingly, a <a href="http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/ZimringReduceKillings.htm">study from 1968</a> shows that knife attacks are more lethal than gun attacks, although someone&nbsp;can't attack with a knife&nbsp;from afar. Sadly, killers who want to be efficient use bombs. The Oklahoma City Bombing killed 168 people and injured over 600.<br /><br />Accidental gun death is a frightening prospect, I'll agree. I cannot be in a room with people who show off their guns unless I trust them implicitly. I shouldn't worry, though. So few people die from accidental gun deaths that it is&nbsp;statistically negligible. More people die from choking<em>.</em><br /><br />Despite an increased number of guns in the hands of American citizens, we have <a href="http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm">less murders than at any time in the past<em> fifty-three</em> years</a>, and&nbsp;with only occasional variance,&nbsp;it continues to fall.<em>&nbsp;</em>More people die from infection than from gun-related homicides.&nbsp; More people <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null">die from <em>falling</em></a><em>. </em>More people <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death">drink themselves to death</a> every year than die in shootings of any kind.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Causes_of_death_by_age_group.png/450px-Causes_of_death_by_age_group.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="242" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Causes_of_death_by_age_group.png/450px-Causes_of_death_by_age_group.png" width="320" /></a></div><br />Some&nbsp;insist that the United States is the most violent country in the world, however,&nbsp;our murder&nbsp;rate is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate"> ranked 104th</a>.&nbsp;That does not even include government violence on its people. It does not include war and largely ignores genocide. If&nbsp;we look at&nbsp;rape statistics,&nbsp;the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html">United Kingdom</a>, Sweden, Belgium, Australia&nbsp;and others have a higher rate of attack than the United States. This isn't to say that the United States doesn't have a violence problem. We do. But it's <em>not</em> a gun problem. Unarmed assaults <a href="http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0860.pdf">vastly, <em>vastly</em> outnumber armed assaults</a>.<br /><br />The oft cited 30,000 gun deaths in America per year includes suicides. The majority of gun deaths (17,000+) &nbsp;are suicides. Yet, gun-control advocates claim that removing guns will lower the suicide rate. There is an stunning naiveté required to claim that someone who decides to end everything that is and ever will be, suddenly will be dissuaded from ending it all if a firearm isn't near. If guns were banned, we'd see a major increase in carbon monoxide-related deaths, not a decrease in suicides. It doesn't matter, anyway. No one is trying to ban shotguns (yet) and they are the&nbsp;<a href="http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods">easiest</a> and quickest&nbsp;way to kill one's self. Including suicide statistics in gun control debates is the most egregious misrepresentation of facts by gun-control advocates&nbsp;spinning their agenda. In the past week, these statistics have been included in gun control talks on The Daily Show, NPR, The Washington Post and&nbsp;surely many others.&nbsp;For this, more than anything, they should be scolded.<br /><br />Some have proposed firearm registration and something called a "universal background check," a concept&nbsp;that has drawn wide support. However, most people don't know what it entails. Universal background checks require private sellers to do background checks on anyone who buy their firearms, including personal acquaintances. This would include gifts.&nbsp;I'll not dwell on the fact that my personal acquaintances should <em>never</em> be able to check my credit and skip right to the impracticality. There is simply no way to implement this plan without a&nbsp;national registry. Registration and universal background check are synonymous. Support for firearm registration plunged when a New York Newspaper <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/25/3802960/new-york-newspaper-posts-map-with-names-addresses-of-gun-owners">released the names and addresses of firearm owners</a> in New York. Some of the firearm owners were hiding from abusive ex-spouses and, fearing for their lives, bought firearm protection. It also <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/04/ex-burglars-confirm-that-newspapers-gun-owner-map-is-like-gold-for-crooks-exceptionally-stupid/">encouraged burglary</a>, showing exactly which houses could be robbed to obtain firearms or which residences&nbsp;were incapable of&nbsp;offering lethal resistance (as a side note: the newspaper, fearing the overwhelming negative reaction to their stunt, hired <em>armed guards</em> to protect them). Not least of all, a list like that has been, and&nbsp;almost certainly&nbsp;would again&nbsp;be used as a list of "potential threats." No one fully appreciated the consequences of "collecting names" until this fiasco.<br /><br />A popular target of gun-control has been the conceal and carry laws, such as the one in Missouri, that allows law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm. An early argument against it proposed that having ready access to weapons at all times would lead to impulse slayings. That turned out to be false. People who legally carry concealed weapons are <a href="http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm"><em>thirteen times </em>less likely to commit crimes</a>. Gun-control lobbyists insisted that&nbsp;crime would go up. It hasn't. <a href="http://concealedcampus.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/12/ccw_gun_facts.pdf">Crime has fallen</a> in states with conceal and carry options. Gun-control advocates have been scrambling to avoid crediting the drop in violence&nbsp;to the conceal and carry laws, but the data contradicts them.<br /><br />Gun-control advocates tend to behave as if the government of the United States is a force for good that will <em>always </em>exist and accuse people who prepare for the worst as delusional nut-jobs. The media&nbsp;only interviews the delusional nut-jobs, so it's easy to make the association.&nbsp;I'm unsure why the left wing of the political spectrum believes the United States is impervious to the domestic erosion that has claimed the identity of&nbsp;many great nations. The national media interviews boisterous, paranoid, gun-totin' whackjobs who&nbsp;are incapable of spouting anything more interesting than "Hitler took the guns and look what happened."&nbsp;We don't have to flash back to World War II to find detrimental subjugation of an unarmed public.&nbsp;Just recently,&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%932012_Iranian_protests">public demonstrations&nbsp;from&nbsp;defenseless Iranian citizens</a> ended with violent&nbsp;police response. The democratic movement against tyranny and corruption was crushed <em>because the citizenry didn't have guns</em>. Such a threat&nbsp;is not&nbsp;imminent in the United States, but private firearm ownership is not an unreasonable&nbsp;safeguard.&nbsp;The way&nbsp;anti-gun advocates portray gun owners&nbsp;validates the suspicion that&nbsp;anti-gun rights groups simply don't like people who like guns.&nbsp;However, the current&nbsp;leaders in the NRA are not helping their&nbsp;own&nbsp;case.<br /><br />No matter the animosity building on each side of the debate, there <em>are</em> forms of gun control that&nbsp;both sides agree on. We all agree that firearms should not be sold to criminals or kids. Nor should they be sold to previously institutionalized mental patients. If someone has a documented drug addiction, they shouldn't have access to guns. Certainly stalkers shouldn't have hand guns. With the exception of collectors or historians, we mostly believe that people shouldn't have&nbsp;rocket launchers.<br /><br /><em>Those are all laws</em>. In the past ten years 700,000 gun applicants have been denied based upon this criteria.<br /><br />We can all agree that&nbsp;raising awareness about gun violence could be&nbsp;beneficial in prompting more responsible&nbsp;firearm behavior. It will not affect mass shootings by&nbsp;the&nbsp;mentally disturbed, but it could&nbsp;help with inner-city violence.&nbsp;Some community groups and non-profits in Kansas City have been experimenting with this concept.&nbsp;Raising awareness&nbsp;about irresponsible drug use and alcohol consumption has greatly reduced drunk driving incidents. Raising awareness about domestic violence has saved the lives of many children and spouses. We should be exploring options to reduce the cultural influence that encourages violent behavior. No, not video games or movies. They are <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2005/12/01/clinton_law-051201.html">scapegoats of the political left</a>, who don't understand the difference between free&nbsp;expression&nbsp;and inciting crime.&nbsp;A community that nourishes belief that violence can solve real-world problems, that might is right, and a news-media system that promotes paranoia and hopelessness in the <em>real world</em>, not some&nbsp;literary invention,&nbsp;have a much more detrimental effect on the minds of youth.&nbsp;Focusing our efforts on exposing the flaws and lasting consequences of supporting violent behavior will likely have a more lasting effect than abridging our rights.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2013/01/bending-bill-of-rights.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-5401806220082320039Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:17:00 +00002012-11-21T09:38:05.855-06:00The Benghazi Conspiracy Theory<br />Sen. John McCain has taken the resolute position that the US Embassy Attack in Benghazi involved a cover up orchestrated by the President of the United States to conceal details from the American government and people. I can only speculate about his motivation, but I would optimistically like to think it stems from his desire to protect Americans abroad, as he has had the most unpleasant experiences at the hands of overseas enemies. His determination to hold American leadership accountable for the Ambassador Chris Stevens' death probably stems from his genuine appreciation of and fondness for him, who, by all accounts was respected and liked by all who knew him. Sen. McCain's insistence that the President is responsible probably comes from his belief that the President is weak on foreign policy and preemptively judges the President's decision-making as inadequate. Many Americans share this view of the President, therefore the theory that he knew more about the attacks than he was letting on gained traction. Many Republican supporters are reeling and angry at the election results and want to show the world just how right they were about how bad this President is. They latch onto any negative criticism of him. An unfortunate stimulant in this conspiracy theory's ability to gain traction is that&nbsp; many McCain supporters already believe that the President is a Kenyan-born Muslim, so this might not seem like much of a stretch for them (moderate Republicans hate when people bring that up, <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-poll-shows-conservative-republicans-increasingly-believe-obama-is-muslim/">but it is absolutely true</a>)&nbsp;. Once several people agree about something, consensus advertising shows us it's easier for even more people to <a href="http://video.success.com/audio/cialdini-using-consensus/">accept the premise of any claim</a>. Now, we are in the midst of public inquiries brought about by unfounded theories.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6seK6-UymYo/UKzuxx5Q-7I/AAAAAAAAA4M/l2lzlr_-GIo/s1600/ChristopherStevens_2377475b-460x288.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6seK6-UymYo/UKzuxx5Q-7I/AAAAAAAAA4M/l2lzlr_-GIo/s320/ChristopherStevens_2377475b-460x288.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ambassador Chris Stevens</td></tr></tbody></table>McCain's theory, like all conspiracy theories, is comprised of few murky details. He has access to more classified information and little-known details that make the rest of us curious onlookers envious, but he has not presented a coherent argument for his theories and is behaving in the exact way that he accused the President of behaving. He has provided no basis for his arguments. Because of that, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid <a href="http://images.politico.com/global/2012/11/121116_benghazi_2.html">denied John McCain's request</a> for an inquisition-style Senate Committee. Investigations are already underway in the Senate and the House, so Sen. McCain's request for a televised prosecution of the President's administration, no matter how nobly intended, is absurd. Even Republican Senator Susan Collins, Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Committee, said that McCain's suggestion was unnecessary.<br /><br />The accusations of conspiracy began during the presidential debates, when Republicans, for some reason, accused the president of concealing the fact that the attack did not just spawn from a protest, but was actually a coordinated attack. This does not make sense because, <i>the day after the attack</i> he said, "And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start." Considering the attack could have come from any number of groups that hate America, including remnants of forces loyal to Quaddafi or Ansar Al Sharia, <a href="http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19/official-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points-made-by-intel-community/">as some military intel suggested</a>, there was no reason for him to immediately say the attack was by Al Quaeda until verified. Still, in his speech from the Rose Garden that day, he implied that the attack as an "<a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/16/replay-obamas-rose-garden-remarks-on-libya/">act of terror</a>." Fox News tried to convince its audience with ambitious, but ultimately unsuccessful, sophistry that the <a href="http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/11/05/what-president-obama-really-said-60-minutes-interview-about-benghazi">President didn't say what he actually said</a>, or rather, didn't mean what he said.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Bh5S-CAUqnY/UKzvHiOKCwI/AAAAAAAAA4U/CGi6Ee3eAk4/s1600/john-mccain-benghazi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Bh5S-CAUqnY/UKzvHiOKCwI/AAAAAAAAA4U/CGi6Ee3eAk4/s320/john-mccain-benghazi.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">John McCain Remarks on Benghazi Investigation</td></tr></tbody></table><br />The conspiratorial claims are far-ranging and constantly evolving. McCain and fellow senator Lindsey Graham first verbally assaulted U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice after she made a presentation to the United Nations, implicating an offensive Youtube video as the catalyst for a protest's organic escalation to violent mob. It was a story that the President alluded to in his Rose Garden speech after the attack. Nine days later, the administration announced that Al Qaeda had a hand in the attack. McCain and Graham claimed her integrity should be questioned because she <i>lied</i>&nbsp;to the American people. They plan to block her nomination for Secretary of State after Hilary Clinton's departure. Though she is not even an official choice of the President for the position, McCain and Graham have erected a preemptive obstacle. The President threw down the gauntlet in her defense with unexpected hostility and indignant enthusiasm, claiming she was simply reading from a prepared intelligence agency report. McCain immediately retreated from the unjust attack on Rice. He then redirected the fight again toward the President and his administration.<br /><br />As already quite clear, the President should not have jumped to conclusions about this being an act of terror, because the enemy was not absolutely certain and both the CIA and FBI left out information about Al Qaeda leads because they <a href="http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19/official-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points-made-by-intel-community/">didn't want to disrupt the investigation</a>. The President stated publicly that the attackers were organized and targeted Americans, but that was all he was willing to say until more details were from the investigation were confirmed, <i>as it should be</i>. What could McCain hoped to have learned from the President the day after that he couldn't wait nine days to find out? It changed nothing. The reason the Youtube video was mentioned as the catalyst for the attack is because the <i>protest </i>WAS about the Youtube video. United States intelligence indicated that the mob was protesting the video and marched on the consulate in an incensed rage, just as they had done in other nations that day. It was hardly the first time angry Muslims <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Danish_embassy_bombing_in_Islamabad">attacked embassies over perceived insults</a>. It's not entirely clear if the Al Qaeda agents were complicit in riling up the crowd, used them because it was convenient, or began the whole demonstration as part of their plan. The concurrent attack on the&nbsp;U.S. embassy in&nbsp;Cairo was a direct result of the Youtube video as well as protests at the Yemen Consulate. Not that Al Qaida needed an excuse, but it seems like the video was the excuse they chose to launch an attack on the United States.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--6abIkNeGnk/UKzvhAMNGAI/AAAAAAAAA4c/-JkKRzK6QVM/s1600/egypt+embassy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--6abIkNeGnk/UKzvhAMNGAI/AAAAAAAAA4c/-JkKRzK6QVM/s320/egypt+embassy.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Attack on Egyptian Embassy</td></tr></tbody></table>CIA reports show that reliable ground level-intelligence was difficult to obtain during the first attack. The CIA had a surveillance drone in the area that gave a limited view of the events preceding the battle, which contributed to early reports that it was a spontaneous attack.&nbsp; After the CIA and FBI testified that the situation "<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/16/congress-receives-confusing-benghazi-briefing-from-administration.html">involved many, many people, and it's a mix of intent, motivation, a mix of skill, armament</a>" the Republicans mostly seemed content that the motivations for the attack were not easily untangled within 24 hours...so they switched attack tactics. McCain then said that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's inaction during the crisis caused the deaths of four Americans. McCain made sure to identify the culprit as a member of the President's cabinet, implicating the President.<br /><br />Responding directly to John McCain, Secretary Panetta wrote that they could not reach the consulate in time, in part, because "<a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83713_Page2.html#ixzz2Chywo83D">several hundred reports were received indicating possible threats to U.S. facilities around the world.</a>" The military was all over the place, investigating threats to other consulates, dealing with the aftermath of other attacks and attempting to defend against other credible threats. They also had to constantly evaluate intelligence received from Benghazi, determining the best plan of action. There are two major criticisms that troops on the ground frequently level at their military superiors when the situations arise: 1.) sending men blindly into a firefight with little-to-no intelligence about the situation, which Panetta clearly was unwilling to do, and 2.) delaying a military response until it's too late. The two criticisms are diametrically opposed. If you avoid one, you run the risk of falling victim to another. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hawk_Down_%28book%29">Black Hawk Down</a> was a movie-worthy tale of sending troops into a situation with inadequate intelligence. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0812993403">Into the Fire</a> is a book about the deadly consequences of taking too long to evaluate threats. The best any military commander can do is balance the two. McCain was not satisfied because reports surfaced that Ambassador Stevens had repeatedly requested additional security after an armed assault <a href="http://diplopundit.net/2012/08/07/us-embassy-libya-another-attack-on-embassy-personnel/">targeted embassy personnel on August 6</a>, but additional security was not given. There was a reason for that, however.<br /><br />The loss of American lives has blinded many to the enormous task of protecting consulates. On July 2, a planned <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/02/iranians-in-kenya-planned-israeli-us-attacks/#ixzz2Ci5uX3KP">attack on the Kenyan consulate</a> was thwarted. The U.S. Embassy said terrorist threats were <a href="http://nairobi.usembassy.gov/mssg-070912.html">still active a week later</a>. On July 26, a <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xsff8p_terrorist-attack-outside-us-embassy-in-bosnia_news#.UKq0E-R9Lew">gunman opened fire</a> outside the U.S. Embassy in Bosnia. On August 5, terrorists <a href="http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_5760.html">attacked Israel, killing 16</a> soldiers and raising the alert for American personnel in that area. On August 6, demonstrations in Afghanistan became violent as they began <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_DW04j2R4fjy2fbkSeBAq3SwBhyFocDbsM0QDXgv1Vw/edit">violently attacking Western targets of opportunity</a>. After an unrelated suicide attack in Yemen, authorities captured Al Qaeda militants who<a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/yemen-2-escaped-al-qaida-prisoners-re-arrested"> planned an attack on the U.S. Embassy</a>. U.S. Embassy security was heightened in Islamabad, Pakistan in <a href="http://tribune.com.pk/story/420617/fearing-terror-attacks-us-embassy-requests-tighter-security-ahead-of-aug-14/">anticipation of violence</a> during Pakistan Independence Day. More personnel was diverted to Pakistan after a suicide bomber killed<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/International/car-bombing-attacks-us-consulate-vehicle-pakistan/story?id=17140993#.UKqtt-R9Lew"> two embassy employees on Sept. 2</a>. Viable Jihadi groups in Egypt <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/jihadis-threaten-to-burn-us-embassy-in-cairo.html">threatened to attack the Cairo Embassy</a> on September 11. In addition to the terrorist attacks, the military attempted to protect the Egyptian and Yemen Consulates from spontaneous attacks. The authorities were also investigating threats to embassies in Lebanon, Tunisia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Zambia, Armenia, Sudan, Berundi and others. The United States is under attack <b>all the time<i>.</i></b> The military believed some of the others had greater reason to fear an imminent attack, and some did (they were attacked). They simply couldn't be everywhere at once.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-i3hi6egMu9I/UKzv9-Qqh0I/AAAAAAAAA4k/1Wk5juP51V8/s1600/panetta-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="229" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-i3hi6egMu9I/UKzv9-Qqh0I/AAAAAAAAA4k/1Wk5juP51V8/s320/panetta-1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Defense Secretary Leon Panetta</td></tr></tbody></table>Not programmed to pass up an opportunity to lie through its teeth, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/">Fox News claimed that the CIA denied backup to the "diplomatic mission."</a> They even marketed the story as an "EXCLUSIVE" and it is still available on their site. <b>The story was <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/10/report-cia-requests-backup-benghazi-were-repeatedly-denied/58419/">debunked in less than 12 hours</a></b>. They are still sticking to that story, even now. Immediately after learning of the attack, <a href="http://m.npr.org/news/front/164140811">we now know</a> that the President ordered special forces dispatched from Italy to help in the fight and scrambled jets from North Carolina to aid in the rescue effort. Military bases in nearby countries evaluated the threat and situation, drafted deployment plans and traveled to Benghazi where they arrived after the firefight. Shortly after the first-wave attack on the main building, the nine-man security team was overwhelmed in a rapidly deteriorating situation. The building was set on fire, causing the death of Management Officer Sean Smith and Ambassador Chris Stevens. CIA operatives from a nearby annex building heroically rushed to the aid of the remaining Americans, bringing them back to the more secure annex building. Less than three hours after fighting began, U.S. security reinforcements from Tripoli arrived to help. In a second attack five hours after the first, a rocket fired at the building killed two security operatives on the roof, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Hopelessly outgunned, the remaining Americans managed to escape to the airport, flying safely to Tripoli and then Germany where they were interviewed by the FBI.<br /><br />I'm really not sure what John McCain thinks <i>anyone</i> should have done here. I'm not sure what he thinks the President could have done better. I'm not sure why he thinks Panetta could have done better, considering the complicated and delicate nature of the task, as well as having Congress <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/16/joe-biden/joe-biden-says-paul-ryan-cut-embassy-security-300-/">cut Embassy funding by $327 million</a>. Cutting funding may have been the right move from a domestic spending standpoint, but it certainly made Panetta's job harder. I'm also not sure what McCain wanted the CIA to do, and they made a pretty significant sacrifice in the first place.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-htVb56zCSfo/UKzwS12vDpI/AAAAAAAAA4s/dYO44vKW_80/s1600/petraeus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-htVb56zCSfo/UKzwS12vDpI/AAAAAAAAA4s/dYO44vKW_80/s320/petraeus.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ex-CIA Director David Petraus</td></tr></tbody></table>The conspiracy took another turn when the affair between CIA Director David Petraeus and his biographer went public, as extremist right-wing conservatives accused the Obama Administration of blackmailing Petraeus to keep quiet about what <i>really</i>&nbsp;happened during the Benghazi attack. Even Charles Krauthammer, the (until recently) respected intellectual elite of the right, is<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=KERAjWavxXs"> propagating the conspiracy theory</a>. All that McCain, Graham, Krauthammer, and pundits like Andrew Napolitano seem convinced of is that <b>there is a conspiracy</b>. All other details are flexible. They adjust the narrative continually and obsessively to meet each new revelation that deflates the veracity of their claims. They can't name a viable reason for the President to conceal the motivation of the attack from anyone. There are no rewards to be reaped. No one's reputation should be affected by honest and rapid action that nonetheless fell short. There isn't enough reason for the President to instigate an international conspiracy to...do...whatever it is Republicans think it's supposed to do. <i>There's no advantage to this so-called conspiracy in any way.</i> Every single person has been honest since day one. Every single story aligns perfectly to the events portrayed by the person testifying ahead of them, from the people on the ground to the people in the Pentagon.<br /><br />There's nothing to see here, folks.<br /><br />Many Americans don't know the details of what surrounds the Benghazi attack. Many understandably rely on news outlets to give them the summary after it's over. But, right now, there are high-level Republican government officials who are determined to live in a conspiracy-filled fantasy world. The Benghazi cover-up isn't even the most ridiculous conspiracy from the Republicans <i>this month</i>. The Georgia Republican Senate Majority Leader sponsored a seminar explaining how <a href="http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/20119364/georgia-gop-leaders-suggest-obama-is-using-mind-control-techniques">Obama won the election using mind-control</a>. That is not a joke or exaggeration. Donald Trump is still spouting about the President's birth certificate. <a href="http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/jul/06/robin-vos/wisconsin-rep-robin-vos-says-voter-fraud-accounted/">Wisconsin </a>and <a href="http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jul/10/moveon/moveon-says-gov-rick-scott-tried-kick-180000-peopl/">Florida </a>elected officials are stating that <i>hundreds of thousands</i> of cases of voter fraud per state won Democrats the election. Before the election, seventy percent of Republicans believed the <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/259655-poll-plurality-of-americans-believe-polls-biased-for-obama">polls were skewed toward Obama</a>, even though they were accurately depicting his victory. This type of conspiratorial thinking should have ended with the election. I thought the message to Republicans was clear: <i>this&nbsp;insanity will no longer be tolerated</i>.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2012/11/the-benghazi-conspiracy-theory.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-3079316385966001155Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:01:00 +00002012-11-15T12:16:14.174-06:00How to Fix the Republican PartyThe United States two-party political system is frequently revered for its elegant simplicity and effectiveness. During my younger years, my father told me it was a good system not easily replaced and one of my favorite historians, J. Joseph Ellis, considers it among the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/American-Creation-Triumphs-Tragedies-Founding/dp/0307276457">"triumphs" of the Founding Fathers</a>&nbsp;(no, it's not in the Constitution). I, on the other hand, find it <a href="http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/02/two-headed-beast.html">limiting, divisive, destructive and dangerou</a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8258428251468629637">s</a>. I want it weakened, split and then eradicated. Data shows that more people are hating it every year, as <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-9-trends-in-party-affiliation/6-4-12-v-100/">Independent voters now outnumber</a> both Republicans and Democrats.<br /><br />My father was right about one thing. It's not easily replaced. Over the past century, Democrats and Republicans have passed laws that make it all but impossible for third-party candidates to get any exposure to the electorate. Despite elected third-party representation in every other developed government, Americans consider it the most unlikely of pipe-dreams.<br /><br />I've dedicated a considerable amount of thought to the destruction of the two-party system. I think it may yet happen. Goodness knows that the Republican party is teetering on the edge. But that doesn't help the American public right now. Instead of complaining about the parties and their behavior, I've decided to take a brief reprieve and focus on how to improve the parties we have. This doesn't excuse either party's stalwart resistance to the inclusion of a third party, but we need better options right <i>now</i>. We shouldn't have to wait until they do enough damage to themselves or each other before we can finally introduce reasonable and electable third-party candidates. We should improve the controlling parties while continuing to strive for more options in upcoming elections.<br /><br />Both parties have issues that appear insurmountable to many voters. Democrats seem incapable of understanding the fact that money isn't limitless. Although Republicans understand this, to a degree, they seemingly understand little else. They are blind to their surroundings in every way. They lost the 2012 Presidential election, seats in the House of Representatives and seats in the Senate, yet they <i>still</i> don't see a need for party reform. Right now, Charles Krauthammer, arguably the smartest man I've ever read, continues to spin the idea that the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-way-forward/2012/11/08/6592e302-29d8-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_story.html?wprss=rss_charles-krauthammer">Republican Party is on the right track</a>.<br /><br />That is willful delusion.<br /><br />Bill O'Reilly and the 24-hour-infomercial known as Fox News are telling their viewers that Republicans lost the election because the American people want handouts and Obama will give it to them.<br /><br />That.<br />Is.<br />A.<br /><i>Lie</i>.<br /><br />According to PEW Research polls, 87% of voters said the <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/24/examining-the-last-four-years/">Economy was a critical issue</a>. In the same poll, we can see that other considerations are fading, such as immigration, energy and terrorism. <i>Fifty-six percent</i> of voters said they preferred a <i>smaller</i> federal government. The country still leans conservative, which it has for a decade.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gQ8DYsMQe68/UJ03LeKMY4I/AAAAAAAAA2c/ixbzL11ax1I/s1600/6-4-12-V-106.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gQ8DYsMQe68/UJ03LeKMY4I/AAAAAAAAA2c/ixbzL11ax1I/s1600/6-4-12-V-106.png" height="278" width="320" /></a></div><br />Eighty-three percent (83%) of Americans are <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/us-usa-debt-ipsos-idUSTRE76P5Q220110726">concerned about the debt</a>. A conservative-leaning electorate with great interest in fixing the debt problem is NOT, by and large, a group that wants handouts. <a href="http://reason.com/poll/2011/05/25/young-people-favor-social-secu">Unless they're old</a>. The only group to continually demand "handouts" en masse, and <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm">raise taxes if necessary</a> to keep it getting handouts, is the baby boomer/retiree voting block. Which is the only group that voted heavily in favor of <i>Republicans</i>. That doesn't sound like an electorate that wants "free stuff." It sounds like an electorate that collectively appreciates the dangers of overspending and wants to do something about it.<br /><br />The majority of people even believed <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/public-notice-poll-obama-and-romney-tied-debt-issues-133207.html"><i>Romney would be better for the debt crisis</i></a>. That's right, people think a Republican might even be better at dealing with the crisis, but couldn't bring themselves to vote Republican <i>anyway.</i><br /><br />I explained in my <a href="http://blog.onehitkill.com/2012/11/republicans-miss-mark.html">last post</a> what the electorate <i>actually</i> has a problem with. To elaborate, nearly every other major issue the Republican Party stands for is either...<br /><br /><a href="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/karoli/audience-boos-gay-soldier-gop-debate">Bigoted</a><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjHa1JHiHFU">Racist</a><br /><a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/17/nation/la-na-0818-perry-global-warming-20110818">Willfully Ignorant</a><br /><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rick-santorum-declared-contraception-harmful-to-women-in-2006/">or Batshit Crazy</a>.<br /><br />The Republican Party has to address these issues. The Presidential Primary proved to the world that the party leadership is comprised of candidates who intend to become the moral police, something most Americans find distasteful in the first place, and worse, their moral compass is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/opinion/keller-the-republican-id.html?pagewanted=all">off-kilter from the rest of the country</a>. That is not a problem with the electorate, the media, or ANYONE ELSE the party wants to blame. It is a Republican Party problem and if they truly want to address the financial issue, they need to abandon their overbearing, intrusive moral crusade. We can make our own decisions. For a party complaining that the Democratic party thinks we're too dumb to make our own decisions and that they pass too many frivolous laws, like cigarette tax hikes, bans on Happy Meals, and volume reduction on Soft Drinks, the Republican Party wants to control the most <i>intimate </i>aspects of our lives. If we have to choose between two overly-legislative styles, we're going pay more for cigarettes and forgo 64 oz big gulps instead of tolerating Senators telling us <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/08/21/718611/republican-party-platform-is-unwaveringly-anti-gay-thanks-to-hate-groups-contributions/">who </a>and <a href="http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/24/utah-house-republicans-pass-bill-banning-the-teaching-of-contraception-in-sex-education-classes/">how </a>to fuck.<br /><br />There is a separation of church and state. We <i>like</i> it that way. The primary obstacle to the Tea Party's incessant attempts to violate the first amendment is&nbsp;<i>churches</i>. They understand the repercussions to religions intervening in the role of government and vice versa. Too many Republican leaders scratch and tear at the wall of separation when they want Christian laws passed, and then conveniently remember why it's there when they want to squelch the influence of Islam's Sharia Law in American politics. It works both ways. Republicans are constitutionally forbidden from favoring Christianity, Islam, Shinto, Buddhism, Judaism, Hellenism, or any of the hundreds of other religions.<br /><br />They can probably use the following religious phrases without a) compromising their faith, or b) alienating everyone else:<br />"God Bless America"<br />"Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims."<br />"My faith has helped guide me through difficult times and tough decisions."<br /><br />No one gets their feathers too ruffled about those innocuous comments. However, once they start <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/29/news/la-pn-bachmann-hurricane-god-20110829">preaching about the will of God</a> (by the way, too many people are privy to God's thoughts, which is blasphemy) or the&nbsp;apocalyptic&nbsp;commandments of Jesus (whose name was actually Yeshua (<i>double parenthetical bonus</i>: it translates to Joshua) and Republicans don't seem to know that), is when we get into dangerous territory.<br /><br />Democrats aren't divisive, <i>Republicans are</i>. When comparing the party that brought together Latinos, Blacks, women, Asians, Muslims, Atheists, mainstream Christians, Gays and youth for the election, as well as preferred by other nation's leaders to the other party, which is hated by <a href="http://www.classwarfareexists.com/bbc-20-out-of-21-countries-prefer-obama-the-lone-dissent-pakistan/">every single other highly developed nation in the <u><i><b>WORLD</b></i></u></a> except Pakistan, that could only rally a majority of votes among <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-surges-in-bush-obama-years/6-4-12-v-15/">50 year old</a> evangelical white males, it's clear which party is divisive. They must knock off this notion that Democrats are the villains in this story and take responsibility for scaring off every demographic with extremist rhetoric and policies.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gwTHgrIsKWo/UJ17LjUngnI/AAAAAAAAA2s/21HpDw4mDMs/s1600/6-4-12-V-104.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gwTHgrIsKWo/UJ17LjUngnI/AAAAAAAAA2s/21HpDw4mDMs/s1600/6-4-12-V-104.png" height="400" width="271" /></a></div><br />They need to stop threatening Revolution.&nbsp;<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/us-election-bluster/index.html">Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;is the most recent Republican to do so. It's been said by&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/05/greene-county-gop-armed-revolution-necessary-if-obama-reelected-75797.html">Greene County, VA Republicans</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/07/sarah-palin-tea-party-speech">Sarah Palin</a>. Sean Hannity <a href="http://digitaljournal.com/article/268121">irresponsibly hyped the rhetoric</a>. Michele Bachmann <a href="http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/michele-bachmann-seeks-armed-and-dangerous-opposition-to-cap-and-trade/">encouraged it</a>. Glenn Beck alternately&nbsp;<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,602482,00.html">condemns</a>&nbsp; revolution or&nbsp;<a href="http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/glenn-beck-fox-news-030309">advocates</a>&nbsp;it, depending on if it's communist or his idea &nbsp;(He's a Libertarian, though. Kind of). Republican Leaders called for citizens to take their country back, take to the streets, rise up! When the Occupation movement began, when the poor and downtrodden, the young and passionate did exactly that,&nbsp;<i>Republicans</i>&nbsp;did everything possible to crush the movement. They're not just calling for&nbsp;revolution, they're hypocrites about it. They clearly don't care about the will of the people, they just want to do whatever <i>they</i> want. Because that rhetoric is unnecessarily&nbsp;incendiary&nbsp;and they are so selective about whether it is the revolution&nbsp;<i>they</i>&nbsp;want to lead, whether the people want it or not, they need to stop talking about it.<br /><br />And for goodness' sake, they <i>have</i>&nbsp;to&nbsp;stop talking about Rape! People are making lists of the<a href="http://www.ranker.com/list/the-8-most-horribly-insensitive-republican-rape-comments/molly-mahan"> <i>most </i>offensive Republican comments about rape</a>. That list should have one comment, the only one before they all learned to <i>shut up</i>. If at any point they think it's a good idea to talk about rape, Republicans should take a deep breath, and really think, not rush it. They should think about how they will word it, try to visualize the face of the person they are speaking with when they say it, concentrating on the outcome. They should take time to consider the reactions of the casual passers-by, whom may hear; take a look at them and wonder, really wonder, if they're going to understand, with the utmost clarity, what is being said. If they do all that, the person they were talking to should have already left after uncomfortably staring at their perplexed and distant expressions. They'll know they said the right thing if <i>nothing came out of their fucking mouths</i>. Don't. Ever. Talk. About. Rape. If necessary, Republicans should start the Don't Ever Talk About Rape Foundation (D.E.T.A.R.F.) to give support to <i>idiots</i> in&nbsp;their&nbsp;party who may think they have a problem with spontaneous rape-talk. It tends to be a uniquely Republican phenomenon to burst into rape-talk without warning. They need to nip that shit in the bud.<br /><br />Just this advice will help Republicans with Asians, Latinos, Mulsims, Jews and Women. Fixing these issues will not compromise what is supposed to be the core issues among Republicans, fiscal responsibility and a limited and efficient government, because <i>most of the country wants that</i>. If Republicans really cared what happens to the country's finances, then they wouldn't use their podiums to ram overreaching moral&nbsp;imperatives&nbsp;down our throats; they would concentrate on finance.<br /><br />Follow the examples of Marco Rubio when he says, God doesn't love us more than Belgium. &nbsp;Follow the lead of Jon Huntsman, when he says he believes Scientists about Global Warming and evolution. Get away from complaining about how we're all a bunch of teat-sucking degenerates and concentrate on how to help our financial situation, improve energy efficiency, avoid foreign dependence on oil (and oil altogether, if possible) and advance scientific innovation. We can all get behind those things.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2012/11/how-to-fix-republican-party.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-8364934272589027884Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:50:00 +00002012-11-07T11:55:20.277-06:00politicsRepublicansRepublicans Miss the MarkRepublicans, I am your target.<br /><br />I'm a political moderate who believes a balanced budget is essential to renewed American prosperity. I'm a swing voter. In 2008, my ballot crissed and crossed party lines as I tried to support candidates who reflected ethical leadership and responsibility. You've had me in your sights since 2008, and after campaigning for my benefit, speaking directly to me and my circumstances, you have completely missed the mark.<br /><br />You believed you could attach any price tag to fiscal reform and we'd accept it because we are desperate for it. You overstated the meaning of the 2010 congressional election, when seats swung conservative, you believed it was an endorsement of all Republican ideals. You banked on it. You were wrong. For the sake of promised fiscal responsibility, I, and apparently many others, was not willing to take it at the cost of compromising fundamental freedoms and sacrificing reason.<br /><br />Americans tend to respect science. It brought electricity into our homes, gave us transportation to work, improved medicine and got us to the Moon. Yet, the Republican Party, with increasing intensity, demands we reject clear scientific data about Global Warming, Germ Theory and Evolution.<br /><br />You demand we assign special significance to the relationships of certain consenting adults and condemn the relationship of other consenting adults. Most of us couldn't care less what people do or who they do it with.<br /><br />You've stepped away from the encouragement and promotion of values and, instead, attempt to legislate them. You too often emphasized the middle name of the President, as if it held some significant meaning. You denied the validity of his verified and triple-checked birth records. You unreasonably called him a Muslim while equating American Muslims with terrorists.<br /><br />You fervently claimed to know the will of a God, and try to make us abide by that will, whether we believe or not. In the only country with a legal founding document elucidating the separation of church and state, you've demanded we worship your God in your way.<br /><br />For every person willing to risk social injustice for the sake of financial stability, there were more who refused to accept your party's unreasonable prejudices. You've crossed lines the rest of us defend. We do not want zealous anti-science intolerance. Sure, we want passion and responsibility, but we want logic and reason too. After the frightening Republican Presidential Primary, Mitt Romney was the only candidate who stood a chance of election, and even he could not overcome the party stigma. You've attached too high a price tag to fiscal reform.<br /><br />You've lost the Presidential election because of it.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2012/11/republicans-miss-mark.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-3451580211000607940Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:00:00 +00002012-03-18T15:08:47.991-05:00border warkansasmissouriKansas Vs. Missouri: The Ultimate ShowdownIf you are not from Kansas or Missouri, you may not know how much they hate each other.&nbsp;People from Kansas often call&nbsp;<i>all</i>&nbsp;Missourians idiots. Same thing vice-versa, but it's a different story when the opposing residents are face-to-face.&nbsp;The hate usually does not percolate to the surface in casual friendships. Missourians and Kansans don't seem to hate each other. They hate the other state. Many work together, get along very well, cross borders to have parties with their friends, but as soon as they begin to argue over which state is superior, arguments are heated and sincere. It is state bigotry, hating someone for where they live. They seem to think it is somehow "competitive" and healthy, but it's every bit as petty as racism.<br /><br />The rivalry stems from the Civil War when Kansas Jayhawkers and Missouri Bushwhackers would cross the border and slaughter each other and each other's families. Neither side can claim innocence. The violence has been tamed considerably, only occasionally manifesting itself in barroom brawls over a college sporting events between the University of Missouri and the University of Kansas.<br /><br />Both states claim superiority over the other in everything: education, sports, fame, talent, righteousness. I've decided to analyze the two states and determine which is better in the categories the two states fight over most.<br /><br /><br /><b>College Sports:</b><br /><br />The University of Kansas is traditionally superior in basketball than the University of Missouri. KU leads the all-time contest at 172-95, according to Wikipedia. Missouri has a very good basketball program. It is routinely ranked in the top 25, with some exceptional teams (1996-1997, 2011-2012), but KU arguably has the best basketball program in the nation. Athletes from all over the country fight for KU basketball scholarships.&nbsp; The state of Kansas also has the lesser-known, but also excellent, K-State basketball team. K-State frequently ranks in the top 25. Southeast Missouri State University has had a Division I NCAA basketball program, but the team struggles. Kansas has the better end of basketball, hands down.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--L3Sl0JLDu4/T2ErO1HKmRI/AAAAAAAAAZE/pmegX82HgRs/s1600/jayhawks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="235" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--L3Sl0JLDu4/T2ErO1HKmRI/AAAAAAAAAZE/pmegX82HgRs/s320/jayhawks.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br />With football, Kansas has very little to offer. K-State has improved in recent years, but still holds one of the worst NCAA Div I football records of all time. KU lost ten straight games in 2011 and didn't win a single conference game. They sometimes manage a halfway decent team, and indeed, their overall record is just barely over 50%, but not for much longer. KU's football glory days appear long behind them. Missouri has won more conference and division titles and has gone to more than twice as many bowl games. No contest here: Missouri wins.<br /><br />K-State ranked in baseball for the first time ever in 2010. KU has made a grand total of four NCAA tournament appearances in its 132 year history, while Missouri has been to twenty-one, including seven since 2003, they've been conference champs fifteen times. Missouri dominates this category.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QJXliAIDNh4/T2Ero606Y6I/AAAAAAAAAZM/ZRNMRUth-yc/s1600/tigers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="216" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QJXliAIDNh4/T2Ero606Y6I/AAAAAAAAAZM/ZRNMRUth-yc/s320/tigers.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br />Other than the "big three" sports, Missouri is often a top ranking school in most programs. Missouri wrestlers took the Big 12 Championship in 2012 and sent all of its squad to the NCAA championship, and are ranked tenth in the nation. KU nor K-State don't even have Div I wrestling programs. K-State <i>does</i> have one of the winningest women's volley-ball programs in the NCAA. It's not enough to make up for the lack of Kansas sport diversity. Missouri has good cross-country, gymnastics, softball, golf, tennis, track, and women's soccer programs. Other than Div I sports, Missouri has a surprising number of smaller schools with good sports programs such as University of Central Missouri's baseball program, Columbia College's girls' softball, UMKC's men's basketball and many others.<br /><br />Missouri has the complete package in college athletics while Kansas cheer is mostly sequestered to the three months out of the year in which they play basketball.<br /><br />Winner: Missouri.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--o4YO-9aJJM/T2Eq77qgiGI/AAAAAAAAAY8/mKBQL8Cd4eg/s1600/Missouri+football+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--o4YO-9aJJM/T2Eq77qgiGI/AAAAAAAAAY8/mKBQL8Cd4eg/s320/Missouri+football+2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /><br /><b>College Education</b><br /><br />According to US News, the University of Missouri is ranked 90th on the list of top 400 national universities. Kansas is ranked #101 and K-State is #143. In all honesty, MU and KU are in a dead heat for academia despite the rankings. They are strong in different areas and basically tie in several categories. Missouri edges them out, but not by much.&nbsp; All three are excellent academic schools.<br /><br />Beyond the two state universities, Kansas doesn't have much to brag about. Their other colleges are mostly fine institutions. They just don't have well-renowned schools for any specific area of study like the colleges in Missouri. The University of Missouri System is comprised of three schools other than MU itself and they are all nationally respected for their specialized programs: UMSL for its Criminal Justice program, UMKC for law, and the Missouri University of Science &amp; Technology is the best engineering school in the nation. The Kansas City Art Institute is internationally recognized for its excellence in art education. Kansas has some good community colleges, but so does Missouri. Missouri has nine colleges with over 10,000 students and Kansas only has four.<br /><br />Missouri wins this one. <br /><br /><br /><b>High School Education&nbsp;</b> <br /><br />High school is something of a convoluted mess, but I'll try to sort it out. Virtually all the scoring data is from 2009 or before, so the recent collapse of Kansas City, MO schools isn't reflected in most data. The only recent data shows information only on <a href="http://www.alec.org/docs/17thReportCard/ALECs_17th_Report_Card.pdf">low-income students</a>, in which it shows Missouri performing poorly and Kansas performing well in 2011, overall. According to Statemaster, Kansas has<a href="http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_hig_sch_dip_or_hig_by_per-high-school-diploma-higher-percentage"> more students receive their high school diplomas</a> than Missouri. Both states are above average in that category, with Kansas ahead. As far as the quality of work expected by students, Missouri has higher standards than any other state in the union. Their educational content is ranked number one according to the <a href="http://www.alec.org/publications/report-card-on-american-education/">American Legislative Exchange Council</a>. Kansas has middling-to-low standards and ranks <i>41st</i>.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/state-education-rankings-_n_894528.html">Science and Engineering Readiness Index</a> ranks Missouri as below average and Kansas as average for math and science scores. The <a href="http://dashboard.ed.gov/dashboard.aspx">United States Department of Education</a> ranks Kansas in the top ten for Black students and Missouri in the top ten for Hispanic students. Both states rank in the top ten math scores for students with disabilities in grade school. From 2007-2009, Missouri was ranked in the top ten for graduation rate.<br /><br />Until recently, Missouri was known as the slightly superior state in <a href="http://dashboard.ed.gov/statecomparison.aspx?i=e&amp;id=9&amp;wt=0">secondary </a>education, but with the collapse of Kansas City schools dragging down their numbers, I'm not sure that will hold.<br /><br />Based on what data we have, both states are above average, but Missouri has a bit better numbers. However, that doesn't exactly translate to intelligence...<br /><br /><br /><b>Intelligence</b><br /><br />IQ tests aren't too reliable, but every single study from 2002-2006 ranks Kansas with a higher collective IQ. Kansas averaged about 102 (and climbing) and Missouri averaged 101 (and stagnant). I wanted some other gauge, so I looked at ACT scores. Kansas scored higher on everything but English.<br /><br /><br />Winner: Kansas<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Average Income</b><br /><br />This one is cut and dry. Kansans make more money. On average Kansans make $47,817 a year and Missourians average $45,229.&nbsp; It's a good thing too, because...<br /><br /><br /><b>Cost of Living</b><br /><br />It cost more to live in Kansas. Taxes are higher, groceries are more expensive, gas is more expensive, liquor is more expensive, the beer is weaker, and god help you if you are a smoker in Kansas. The price of cigarettes is at least 20% higher in Kansas.<br /><br />Winner: Missouri <br /><br /><br /><b>Professional Sports</b><br /><br />At the highest level of competitive play, Kansas has the Major League Soccer team, <i>Sporting Kansas City. </i>Most people consider MLS to be on a lower tier of professional play than the "Big 4," football, baseball, basketball and hockey. The most profitable and widely followed are, of course, football and baseball. Missouri has the Kansas City Royals, Kansas City Chiefs, St. Louis Blues, St. Louis Cardinals and St. Louis Rams. Both states have many minor league or lesser-division professional sports teams. There's not much competition here.<br /><br />Missouri wins.<br /><br /><br /><b>Famous Entertainers</b><br /><br />This is always fun to talk about. There is pride in having famous or talented individuals come from one's home state. So much so, that Missourians and Kansas will argue over who has the <i>best</i> famous people. Both states even have museums dedicated to famous residents. There are different types of famous people, so I've divided them up into different categories. I also dismissed anyone who was born in one of the states, but moved at a very young age or shortly after birth. Also, people frequently moved from Missouri to Kansas and vice versa, so I had to do a bit of research to find out which state they preferred. If I couldn't decide, as in the case of Dennis Hopper, I just left them off both lists. This only happened with people who lived in Kansas and Missouri. If they moved away to Hollywood or New York, I just placed them in whichever state they spent solid time in. The people had to have some sort of attachment to the state, either spending a childhood there or spending several important years of their lives there. Missouri, of course, is at a statistical advantage because it has more people.<br /><br /><i>Musicians</i><br />Music is more polarizing than anything. For every person I might list here that is a platinum selling musician, someone else might consider it a detriment to the state's reputation, so I won't list all of the famous musicians from the states.&nbsp;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTORd2Y_X6U">Charlie Parker</a><span id="goog_2065217461"></span><span id="goog_2065217462"></span><a href="http://draft.blogger.com/"></a>, one of the most influential jazz musicians, grew up in Missouri, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Berry">Chuck Berry</a>, the man credited with "creating" rock n' roll, is from Missouri. Kansas has some great and influential musicians, best of the bunch being <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_SEmcFVG-8">Melissa Etheridge</a>&nbsp;and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=063LYBBlR3c">Joe Walsh</a> but not as many and they're mostly not the same caliber.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://2.gvt0.com/vi/Kew3Xx6e8-I/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Kew3Xx6e8-I&fs=1&source=uds" /> <param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /> <embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Kew3Xx6e8-I&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div><br /><i>Actors</i><br />Kansas has some great actors they can officially call <i>Kansans</i>. Chief among them is <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000388/">R. Lee "Gunny" Ermey</a>, the fast-cursing gunnery sergeant made famous in Stanley Kubrick's <i>Full Metal Jacket</i>. They also lay claim to <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000799/">Ed Asner</a> (<i>Up</i>, <i>"Roots"</i>), <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0748620/">Paul Rudd</a> (<i>Knocked Up</i>) and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000263/">Kirstie Allie</a> (<i>Cheers</i>). They also have <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000467/">Don Johnson</a> (<i>Miami Vice</i>) and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0236711/">Billy Drago</a> (<i>Untouchables)</i>. Unfortunately for Kansas, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000093/">Brad Pitt</a> (<i>Seven, Fight Club</i>) is native to Missouri and even went to MU. It's pretty hard to trump the biggest living movie star. Missouri can also lay claim <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000537/">Steve McQueen</a> (<i>The Great Escape</i>), <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000422/">John Goodman</a> (<i>Roseanne</i>), <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000177/">Kevin Kline</a> (<i>A Fish Called Wanda</i>), <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0358316/">Jon Hamm</a> (<i>Mad Men</i>), <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001637/">Vincent Price</a> (<i>House on Haunted Hill</i>), <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001677/">Ginger Rogers</a> (<i>Top Hat</i>), <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001635/">William Powell</a> (<i>The Thin Man</i>), <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002107/">Betty Grable</a> (<i>How to Marry a Millionaire</i>), <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0177933/">Chris Cooper</a> (<i>Bourne Identity</i>), <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000836/">Scott Bakula</a> (<i>Quantum Leap</i>), <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0278979/">Jenna Fischer</a> (<i>The Office</i>) and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1020124/">Sarah Clarke</a> (<i>24</i>).<br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-grfU6j0VY4w/T2EuSMIEonI/AAAAAAAAAZs/L3tGkUkCk3k/s1600/r+lee+ermey.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="249" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-grfU6j0VY4w/T2EuSMIEonI/AAAAAAAAAZs/L3tGkUkCk3k/s320/r+lee+ermey.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">R. Lee Ermey in <i>Full Metal Jacket</i></td></tr></tbody></table><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Dvx8LGqOgvM/T2Eud3TBg2I/AAAAAAAAAZ0/o1IXKj6ZQzc/s1600/fightclub2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Dvx8LGqOgvM/T2Eud3TBg2I/AAAAAAAAAZ0/o1IXKj6ZQzc/s320/fightclub2.jpg" width="195" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Brad Pitt in <i>Fight Club</i></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br /><br /><i>Directors</i><br />Kansas has some exceptional native directors. I'm especially fond of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0118333/">Chris Buck</a>, who directed <i>Surf's Up</i> and <i>Tarzan (1999)</i> and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0861703/">Richard Thorpe</a> (<i>Above Suspician, Ivanhoe</i>), an underrated golden age Hollywood director who worked with every star of the day including Elvis in <i>Jailhouse Rock</i>. Their biggest celeb director is&nbsp;<i> </i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1135423/">Darren Lynn Bousman</a>, who directed <i>Saw II, III, </i>and<i> IV</i>. They also have <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0662953/">Gordon Parks</a> (<i>Shaft</i>), <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0336241/">Alex Grave</a> (<i>Fringe</i>), and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0201509/">Eric Darnell</a> (<i>Antz, Madagascar</i>).<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />Missouri may actually trump every state in this category because it can claim demigods <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001379/">John Huston</a> (<i>Maltese Falcon, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, African Queen, The Man Who Would Be Queen</i>) and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000370/">Walt Disney</a>. Also from Missouri is Disney's Warner Brothers counterpart <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0293989/">Friz Freleng</a> who helped create Bugs Bunny and the other <i>Looney Toons</i>. If that wasn't enough (and it is), <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000265/">Robert Altman</a> (<i>M.A.S.H., The Player, Short Cuts</i>), <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0587518/">John Milius</a> (<i>Wind and the Lion, Conan The Barbarian</i>), and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0346550/">David Guggenheim</a> (<i>An Inconvenient Truth, Waiting for Superman</i>) are all Missourians.<br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tnVsb4rySMQ/T2EuAAf08qI/AAAAAAAAAZk/TLZ2MVV_L94/s1600/Walt_Disney.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tnVsb4rySMQ/T2EuAAf08qI/AAAAAAAAAZk/TLZ2MVV_L94/s1600/Walt_Disney.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Walt Disney</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><i>Authors/Writers</i><br />Kansas has several good lesser-known authors. The only Kansas author of exceptional literary note is the great poet <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langston_Hughes">Langston Hughes</a>, who was born in Missouri, but preferred Kansas.&nbsp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Burroughs">William S. Burroughs</a>&nbsp;split his time between Missouri and Kansas, so he can't be assigned to anyone. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingalls_Wilder">Laura Ingalls Wilder</a> did too, and was a very active community leader in Missouri for twenty years, but she wrote <i>Little House on the Prairie </i>about Kansas. That trumps everything else. &nbsp;Baseball legend <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_James">Bill James</a> (Baseball Abstract) is from Kansas. That's something.<br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k8L3q-f8XSA/T2EvJwLqWhI/AAAAAAAAAaE/aLeLLsGZM7s/s1600/220px-LangstonHughes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k8L3q-f8XSA/T2EvJwLqWhI/AAAAAAAAAaE/aLeLLsGZM7s/s320/220px-LangstonHughes.jpg" width="219" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Langston Hughes</td></tr></tbody></table>The most famous North American author to ever live is from Missouri: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_twain">Mark Twain</a> (<i>Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer</i>). The most famous journalist in America was also a Missourian: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Pulitzer">Joseph Pulitzer</a> (yes, that Pulitzer). The most famous poet in all the world, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.s._eliot">T.S. Eliot</a> (<i>The Wasteland</i>) is from Missouri. One of the most famous playwrights in the world, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennesse_williams">Tennessee Williams</a>, is a Missourian. Missouri can also call the world-famous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_angelou">Maya Angelou</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_heinlein">Robert Heinlein</a> (<i>Stranger in a Strangeland, Starship Troopers</i>), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Chopin">Kate Chopin</a> (<i>The Awakening</i>), &nbsp;its own. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hemingway">Ernest Hemingway</a> was also a part time resident of Kansas City, MO, where he had two of his children and worked for the Kansas City Star. The most famous comic book artist of all time, now a writer and DC Comics executive, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Lee">Jim Lee</a>, is a native Missourian.<br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_DxmuFFJQCg/T2Eu6zU1TBI/AAAAAAAAAZ8/iECK3i0Zr9w/s1600/mark-twain-white-hair.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_DxmuFFJQCg/T2Eu6zU1TBI/AAAAAAAAAZ8/iECK3i0Zr9w/s320/mark-twain-white-hair.jpg" width="263" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mark Twain</td></tr></tbody></table>So, to recap on the famous people. Missouri claims, arguably, the most famous movie star currently living, Brad Pitt; one of the most talented actresses, Ginger Rogers; one of the most revered film directors of all time, John Huston; the most famous comic book artist ever, Jim Lee; the most famous American journalist, Joseph Pulitzer; the most famous American novelist of all time, Mark Twain; the most famous poet, T.S. Eliot; and possibly the most famous person in the <i>world</i>, Walt Disney. It's not really fair to put any group up to those guys--not even R. Lee Ermey.<br /><br />Missouri, hands down.<br /><br /><br /><b>Driving</b><br /><br />This is one of the largest debates among Missouri and Kansas. Missourians accuse Kansans of driving like slowpokes. Kansans accuse Missourians of driving like frenzied maniacs. According to a <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/26/tomtom-data-reveals-u-s-drivers-average-speed-fastest-highway/">study</a> published by Tom Tom Kansas doesn't drive all that slowly (at least on interstates), but a <a href="http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/284795/3/Missouri-drivers-second-worst-in-nation-according-to-report">report</a> has shown that, yes, Missourians drive like frenzied maniacs, getting an incredible amount of speeding tickets. According to the same Tom Tom study, Missouri posts similar speeds on the internet state Missouri ranked <i>second worst</i> among states, only ahead of Louisiana. Also, Kansas was found to have the <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/31/america-s-worst-drivers-the-states-genders-with-the-most-accidents.html">most prepared</a> drivers, scoring higher on written driving tests than any other state. Part of this is because <a href="http://mapsof.net/map/kansas-population-map">most people in Kansas live around Kansas City</a>. <i>Travel and Leisure</i> surveys found that <a href="http://www.travelandleisure.com/americas-favorite-cities/2011/city/kansas-city">Kansas City and its surrounding area have the second best drivers in the country</a>. It's almost a perfect split from best to worst. No contest.<br /><br />Winner: Kansas<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SbyWmD2MMHU/T2EsjiExpWI/AAAAAAAAAZU/lwbSttEIruQ/s1600/K-96.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="209" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SbyWmD2MMHU/T2EsjiExpWI/AAAAAAAAAZU/lwbSttEIruQ/s320/K-96.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /><b>Sightseeing</b><br /><br />Lake Scott State Park offers the some well-needed scenery, hills and bluffs, in western Kansas, because the rest of western Kansas has lots of wheat--flat, never-ending wheat and sunflowers with virtually no trees. Western Kansas looks as if it were ironed, it's so flat.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-m4EsFF8OXgM/T2DaAR_cFOI/AAAAAAAAAV0/TRsQ-hZq87o/s1600/lake_scott.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-m4EsFF8OXgM/T2DaAR_cFOI/AAAAAAAAAV0/TRsQ-hZq87o/s320/lake_scott.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />They have the Mushroom Rock, which is a cool, rare rock formation in the middle of nowhere.<br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_T9zSIHDQYE/T2DcpDb-s_I/AAAAAAAAAV8/huFvH32Vxc0/s1600/mushroc3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_T9zSIHDQYE/T2DcpDb-s_I/AAAAAAAAAV8/huFvH32Vxc0/s320/mushroc3.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I don't know the people, I just picked a picture with people for scale.</td></tr></tbody></table>Kansas has a few other rock formations worth seeing, especially in Kanopolis State Park, and there's a prairie dog town in the northwest. On the eastern side, Kansas has the Flint hills, a group of gentle hills that provide some nice scenery. <br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Konza2.jpg/800px-Konza2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="214" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Konza2.jpg/800px-Konza2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /><br />The Ozarks make Missouri a rather sought after sightseeing state. The most well-known natural attraction is most likely the Lakes of the Ozark. It serves as a party spot for Spring Break, but during the other months it's a popular boating, skiing and fishing attraction.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jZFzRh_nF3U/T2DkRrbF5bI/AAAAAAAAAWM/dae-6sUJK64/s1600/lake-of-the-ozarks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="209" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jZFzRh_nF3U/T2DkRrbF5bI/AAAAAAAAAWM/dae-6sUJK64/s320/lake-of-the-ozarks.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Missouri can boast about having more navigable riverways than any other state, which makes it a draw for canoers, kayakers&nbsp; and rafters. In fact, the riverways are so beautiful in Missouri that they are federally protected. If so desired, people can even <a href="http://www.hannibal.k12.mo.us/hhs/faculty/mbueler/cave/devilsiceboxinfopage.html">canoe through some Missouri caves</a>.<br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dQ4B7-AnpX0/T2DpWGnGrVI/AAAAAAAAAW0/uHNQtyJaybk/s1600/jacksfork.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dQ4B7-AnpX0/T2DpWGnGrVI/AAAAAAAAAW0/uHNQtyJaybk/s320/jacksfork.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Jack's Fork River</td></tr></tbody></table><br />Missouri has a magnificent, huge cave system.<br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4FeunCiDpY8/T2DqkRIDwfI/AAAAAAAAAW8/hGQH0FGjYeI/s1600/CavePix.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4FeunCiDpY8/T2DqkRIDwfI/AAAAAAAAAW8/hGQH0FGjYeI/s320/CavePix.jpg" width="289" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bridal Cave</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br />Unique and beautiful rock formations are scattered throughout Missouri. Elephant Rock State Park is dedicated to the preservation of enormous climbable boulders.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LnlKqotcTew/T2DmCN7QOmI/AAAAAAAAAWU/xGoZkRj15lA/s1600/Elephant-Rocks-State-Park.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LnlKqotcTew/T2DmCN7QOmI/AAAAAAAAAWU/xGoZkRj15lA/s1600/Elephant-Rocks-State-Park.jpg" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-t8XNczipr0w/T2Dmcd7SDGI/AAAAAAAAAWc/idav-klLm7c/s1600/1f466ekny9eybik2zynrxifgb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-t8XNczipr0w/T2Dmcd7SDGI/AAAAAAAAAWc/idav-klLm7c/s320/1f466ekny9eybik2zynrxifgb.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jdmc1532QZY/T2DnZrfZ1dI/AAAAAAAAAWk/-LSDMYV9wrQ/s1600/ozarkian.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="237" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jdmc1532QZY/T2DnZrfZ1dI/AAAAAAAAAWk/-LSDMYV9wrQ/s320/ozarkian.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">photo by <a href="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2216/2038714883_62089bf2bd.jpg">localozarkian</a></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uc1pMakYP-I/T2DoNfsLFjI/AAAAAAAAAWs/7pKsUDfJ6fQ/s1600/johnson+shut-ins.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uc1pMakYP-I/T2DoNfsLFjI/AAAAAAAAAWs/7pKsUDfJ6fQ/s320/johnson+shut-ins.jpg" width="269" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nearby Johnson Shut-Ins provides natural waterslides</td></tr></tbody></table><br />It's pretty clear that Missouri wins this category.<br /><br /><b>Cities</b><br /><b><br /></b><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita,_Kansas">Wichita</a>, KS has a few nice districts and buildings surrounding the Arkansas River. It is the only municipality in Kansas that is a bonafide city.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lSpXup2ouUg/T2Dh-VrYTpI/AAAAAAAAAWE/xWevFZRjQ5w/s1600/wichita-large.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="211" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lSpXup2ouUg/T2Dh-VrYTpI/AAAAAAAAAWE/xWevFZRjQ5w/s640/wichita-large.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JMRB5QPQbK0/T2ESD09XcqI/AAAAAAAAAY0/8z3Mlcxi6hA/s1600/Exploration+Place.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="207" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JMRB5QPQbK0/T2ESD09XcqI/AAAAAAAAAY0/8z3Mlcxi6hA/s320/Exploration+Place.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Exploration Place</td></tr></tbody></table><br />The state capitol of Kansas, Topeka, is really just a collection of hotels surrounding the capitol building. Kansas City, KS is more of a suburb than a city, but it has landed a NASCAR track and an outdoor mega-mall called Legends. However, not much about it is "city-esque."<br /><br />Missouri has two major cities, Kansas City and St. Louis which rank in the thirty largest cities in the U.S., so they have much more architectural diversity, including two world-famous landmarks, the St. Louis Arch and the Kauffman Performing Arts Center in Kansas City.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KL2tsIpHsCQ/T2EB-kmooUI/AAAAAAAAAXU/QO6dtrm8RoA/s1600/St_Louis_Arch_At_Night_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="198" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KL2tsIpHsCQ/T2EB-kmooUI/AAAAAAAAAXU/QO6dtrm8RoA/s320/St_Louis_Arch_At_Night_2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cr2_M8a-TJM/T2ECD2QSuvI/AAAAAAAAAXc/R0W3cTwbXTo/s1600/Kauffman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cr2_M8a-TJM/T2ECD2QSuvI/AAAAAAAAAXc/R0W3cTwbXTo/s1600/Kauffman.jpg" /></a> </div><br /><br />I didn't take any of the following photographs.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City,_Missouri">Kansas City</a> is known for its fountains, extensive parks and boulevards. It has more trees and grass than most cities. Kansas City always ranks high among the nation's "best cities" surveys. The <i>Travel and Leisure</i>&nbsp;surveys found that Kansas City had the best barbecue and it was the most affordable city in the country. It also ranks high among the friendliest cities.<br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bDN-RjzgTVc/T2ECX4eMmYI/AAAAAAAAAXk/m1QCxaz7fMI/s1600/kansas_city_mo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bDN-RjzgTVc/T2ECX4eMmYI/AAAAAAAAAXk/m1QCxaz7fMI/s320/kansas_city_mo.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Union Station in front of Kansas City</td></tr></tbody></table><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yOczCypY_Qg/T2EGFB0XYnI/AAAAAAAAAX0/k3fFj_8qiDg/s1600/41.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="209" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yOczCypY_Qg/T2EGFB0XYnI/AAAAAAAAAX0/k3fFj_8qiDg/s320/41.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Arrowhead and Kauffman Stadiums</td></tr></tbody></table><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xxZXluPWxLQ/T2EKBjb8riI/AAAAAAAAAX8/bOcBli9fesw/s1600/plaza.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="232" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xxZXluPWxLQ/T2EKBjb8riI/AAAAAAAAAX8/bOcBli9fesw/s320/plaza.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Kansas City's Plaza</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ddcJK6B8ZRo/T2EK_c46tSI/AAAAAAAAAYE/h7WyEesrO3k/s1600/JC_Nichols_Fountain_by_Henri-L%C3%A9on_Gr%C3%A9ber_Kansas_City.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="237" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ddcJK6B8ZRo/T2EK_c46tSI/AAAAAAAAAYE/h7WyEesrO3k/s320/JC_Nichols_Fountain_by_Henri-L%C3%A9on_Gr%C3%A9ber_Kansas_City.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Kansas City is the<a href="http://www.kclibrary.org/?q=kchistory/how-many-fountains-are-kansas-city"> City of Fountains</a></td></tr></tbody></table><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GasQkNNeeoc/T2EOjFqkymI/AAAAAAAAAYk/BKcjlbu2QhY/s1600/nelson+atkins.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="237" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GasQkNNeeoc/T2EOjFqkymI/AAAAAAAAAYk/BKcjlbu2QhY/s320/nelson+atkins.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nelson-Adkins Museum of Art</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Louis,_Missouri">St. Louis</a> is so famous for the arch that it's difficult to find a picture of St.L without the arch in it, or from it. However, they have many unique and entertaining districts.<br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--u2xsmdgLEo/T2ED7oCAq5I/AAAAAAAAAXs/-UEsujhEA5E/s1600/st-louis-mo226.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--u2xsmdgLEo/T2ED7oCAq5I/AAAAAAAAAXs/-UEsujhEA5E/s320/st-louis-mo226.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">View From the Arch</td></tr></tbody></table><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Kd2OiX9diNw/T2EMMXFscVI/AAAAAAAAAYM/0nTt0kbTA_0/s1600/st+louis+capitol.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="206" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Kd2OiX9diNw/T2EMMXFscVI/AAAAAAAAAYM/0nTt0kbTA_0/s320/st+louis+capitol.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">St. Louis Capitol Building</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OKDQ5VbA-f0/T2EM0eKU_mI/AAAAAAAAAYU/qlQsQH5E6GM/s1600/stlus_home01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="183" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OKDQ5VbA-f0/T2EM0eKU_mI/AAAAAAAAAYU/qlQsQH5E6GM/s320/stlus_home01.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">St. Louis Union Station</td></tr></tbody></table><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-76199A5BN3Y/T2ENflRsIsI/AAAAAAAAAYc/ceRVJsGsebY/s1600/Busch+stadium.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-76199A5BN3Y/T2ENflRsIsI/AAAAAAAAAYc/ceRVJsGsebY/s320/Busch+stadium.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Busch Stadium</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yFluUAutoX0/T2EPJ_KrIEI/AAAAAAAAAYs/rBs4_MZUA_A/s1600/st+louis+art+museum.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yFluUAutoX0/T2EPJ_KrIEI/AAAAAAAAAYs/rBs4_MZUA_A/s320/st+louis+art+museum.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">St. Louis Art Museum</td></tr></tbody></table>With only one city that sometimes drops out of the top fifty most populated cities, with little to no diversity or cultural history, Kansas doesn't hold a candle.<br /><div><br /></div><div>Winner: Missouri.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Overall</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Kansas won pretty key categories that mean a lot to me personally, "intelligence" being the most important. That makes me think of the quality of people overall. Making more money, on average, than Missourians is also a key category, but with that higher cost of living, it evens out.</div><div><br /></div><div>Naturally, there's nothing <i>to</i>&nbsp;Kansas. It's mostly flat and barren. Their state parks are rarely beautiful compared to Missouri's, and it doesn't have any professional sports teams to distract from its vast nothingness. Even at the college level, they only have basketball to cheer for. Kansas has almost no nightlife to speak of unless they want to cross the border to Missouri. They try to hold Johnson County up as the epitome of Kansas life, with its solid economy, clean streets, excellent shopping and good dining, but it is clearly the exception. Johnson County is also a collection of suburbs to a Missouri city. Even in trivial superiority arguments about actors and musicians Kansas has lesser talent (who made it big).</div><div><br /></div><div>One thing I've noticed when I ask people why they like their state, Missourians name all sorts of things, camping, canoeing, boating, sports, clubbing and a slew of others. Kansans never seem to have anything particular in mind. I'm guessing that they like each other. They like Kansans, because they're generally recognized as friendly people. According to polls, so are Missourians, Southerners, and most of the Midwest. It's not unique to have generally decent people in a state. I finally found <a href="http://www.examiner.com/america-photos-in-national/good-things-kansas-part-four-journey-across-america-series">an article</a> about "good things about Kansas," and the author comes to the conclusion, <i>&nbsp;</i><br /><br /><i>"After crossing the rest of Kansas, I realize that while there may not be mountains or deserts or interesting things to see (like trees), crossing Kansas did offer its gems. The people of Kansas who we interacted with were all very pleasant and made me feel like I was at home. The food was spectacular as well."</i><br /><br />Those are fine attributes of the state, but not unique in any way. They're not even rare. I personally like that they have <a href="http://tripwow.tripadvisor.com/slideshow-photo/looks-like-camels-in-kansas-by-travelpod-member-dan-levitan-n2-arta-djibouti.html?sid=11020862&amp;fid=tp-12">camels roaming around</a>. I'm fascinated by their history, by bleeding Kansas and their famous lawmen. However, every state has its own interesting history. The only thing they seem to know for sure, is that they hate Missouri...except for the Chiefs, Royals, Kansas City BBQ, their nightlife, and bars.</div>http://blog.onehitkill.com/2012/03/kansas-vs-missouri-ultimate-showdown.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-1498566716660269214Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:21:00 +00002011-12-05T14:41:30.510-06:00baseballbatting averageKansas Citymoneyballon base percentageroyalsBatting Average MattersYou wouldn't know it if you've met me in the past seventeen years, but I was the biggest baseball fan you'd ever meet. &nbsp;I wasn't old enough to understand or truly like baseball until about 1990, when the Royals World Series victory was only five years in rear view. &nbsp;On Sundays back then, the paper would publish every player's stats in the back of the sports section. I poured over these statistics. I filled notebook after notebook with projected statistics, trying to determine how well the teams would finish the season. &nbsp;I was a stat rat.<br /><br />For Christmas in 1991, my dad bought me Total Baseball, a several-thousand page book with every batting and pitching statistic ever recorded. It listed the box scores and summaries of every Championship and World Series. It also introduced me to SABRmetrics, advanced statistics that helped determine the actual value of a player, rather than his raw production (Though, back then OPS+ was PRO+ and WAR was TPR. &nbsp;They were renamed due to slight tweaks in the algorithm used to figure them.). MORE stats! I was ecstatic.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xjrcaHJOtCg/TtRBoxRBOiI/AAAAAAAAAQk/a0M_vqUnMIY/s1600/totalbaseball.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xjrcaHJOtCg/TtRBoxRBOiI/AAAAAAAAAQk/a0M_vqUnMIY/s1600/totalbaseball.jpg" /></a></div><br />By 1994, I insatiably consumed everything Baseball. What a year it was for Major League Baseball.&nbsp;I had never seen the Royals in the playoffs and they&nbsp;were in the wild card race. &nbsp;I was barely five years old when they won the World Series. Tony Gwynn was assaulting .400. &nbsp;Ken Griffey Jr, Matt Williams and Frank Thomas were on pace to hit fifty home runs, a feat accomplished by only <b>eleven</b> men before. Thomas was even in the hunt for the Triple Crown and was close to hitting a Home Run once every ten at bats, which hadn't been done since Hank Aaron in 1973.&nbsp;The only other players able to accomplish that were Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, and Hank Greenberg.&nbsp;Greg Maddox gave one of the best pitching seasons in major league history. &nbsp;A Royals pitcher, David Cone, was a lock for the American League Cy Young Award.<br /><br />The players went on strike and the magical season ended after 112 games. There were no playoffs. There was no World Series.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5TRnrg0D1XE/TtRCA7UNvUI/AAAAAAAAAQs/j1wn_wug7K0/s1600/strike.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5TRnrg0D1XE/TtRCA7UNvUI/AAAAAAAAAQs/j1wn_wug7K0/s1600/strike.jpg" /></a></div><br />I was crestfallen. &nbsp;I had never felt so betrayed. &nbsp;I couldn't believe that pure greed could rob me of something I enjoyed so much, and the players I loved and supported were the ones who did it to me. (The owners were also to blame, but they were willing to compromise earlier. The players felt that the proposed salary cap, which would have made the game fairer, would be unfair to the players.)<br /><br />I tried to get back into baseball, but found it hard when seemingly everyone was a power hitter. &nbsp;I never saw so many home runs in my life. I never <i>read</i>&nbsp;about so many home runs. Because there never were so many.&nbsp;In the shortened 1995 season, there were hundreds more home runs than there were in the full 1993 season. Home runs became just another hit. They were pedestrian. &nbsp;I kept only enough of a passing interest in baseball to watch a powerless outfielder named Brady Anderson hit fifty home runs for the Orioles in 1996. &nbsp;I was done. &nbsp;Baseball meant nothing anymore.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tzrVcoyA5us/TtRD4AygMDI/AAAAAAAAAQ0/ygsCdrpgFOg/s1600/brady-anderson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tzrVcoyA5us/TtRD4AygMDI/AAAAAAAAAQ0/ygsCdrpgFOg/s320/brady-anderson.jpg" width="223" /></a></div><br />The fifty home run club's ranks swelled disproportionately. &nbsp;Only those elite eleven players, nearly all Hall of Famers, managed to hit fifty or more home runs in the previous seventy-four years. Within the next ten &nbsp;measly years, the list had more than doubled. Seventy-four years of baseball before the strike had produced exactly fourteen immortals who hit 500 or more career home runs. An incomprehensible testament to potent longevity. Since then, ten more names have been added (Fred McGriff would have been one of them if the strike didn't short him in 1994 and 1995. Instead, he ended his career with 493). I previously mentioned that only three players had hit a home run once every ten at bats; for the next nine years after the strike, there wasn't a season in which a player DIDN'T do it. As it became increasingly clear that the players were cheating, baseball lost all credibility. I watched 'roided-up gorillas like Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds smash beloved and honestly obtained home run records. Their records are beyond tainted. &nbsp;They're meaningless. &nbsp;On top that: since the strike, the Royals have become the worst team in Baseball's modern era with the longest playoff&nbsp;drought&nbsp;by a wide margin.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hUeZLJp2IUQ/TtRESJtY-NI/AAAAAAAAAQ8/fpqeHc1NI_E/s1600/Mark-McGwire.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hUeZLJp2IUQ/TtRESJtY-NI/AAAAAAAAAQ8/fpqeHc1NI_E/s320/Mark-McGwire.jpg" width="282" /></a></div><br /><br />Finally, in 2008, the players got caught cheating and home runs dropped back to about where they were supposed to be. Thirty home runs was a lot again. &nbsp;I began to casually peruse through current stats. With only a handful of exceptions, all the players who went on strike in 1994 had retired. &nbsp;The Royals have the first promising franchise in a long, LONG time. &nbsp;Their roster is filled with young talent who will stick around for years to come, under contract, so they can't run off to the richest teams in the Big Leagues. &nbsp;Without Steroids to tip the scales against the Royals, they look like they will be a competitive team next year or a year after. I found myself regularly checking current baseball stats. The league leaders in home runs and slugging percentage looked more like pre-strike numbers. &nbsp;By mid-season 2011, I was somehow back into baseball.<br /><br />I noticed that something is fundamentally different about how people view baseball now. I was pleased to see SABRmetrics was mainstream among baseball fans and statistical analysis was more valued. I had never heard of Billy Beane or the book&nbsp;<i>Moneyball</i> until the movie came out, but was glad to know they had an influence on which statistics were more noteworthy than others. Ever since I started collecting baseball cards, I knew that On Base Percentage (OBP) was the most important statistic for a batter. It includes every way a player gets on base, including walks and hit-by-pitches, not just base-hits like Batting Average. &nbsp;I once asked my dad why nobody cared about OBP, and he said something like "hits are more exciting." I couldn't argue against that. Walks end plays. Hits start plays.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a3Ry-_T0JRU/TtRBPvaHo-I/AAAAAAAAAQc/t7-qPZ3kzoM/s1600/moneyball02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a3Ry-_T0JRU/TtRBPvaHo-I/AAAAAAAAAQc/t7-qPZ3kzoM/s320/moneyball02.jpg" width="210" /></a></div><br /><br />Unfortunately, batting average has been cast aside by the more hardcore baseball fans as irrelevant. They say "it doesn't matter." &nbsp;I instinctually disagreed. &nbsp;I wasn't sure why, exactly, but hearing that batting average, a statistic I cherish, being dismissed out of hand rubbed me in the worst way. Ted Williams .406 &nbsp;average in 1941 meant nothing? &nbsp;Rogers Hornsby's .424 was a meaningless 20th century record? &nbsp;Surely nostalgia wasn't the only reason I so violently opposed the hypothesis that batting average didn't matter. &nbsp;Maybe its just how dismissive the claim was. To say that OBP is more important is obvious. To say that a stat is without the enough merit any consideration is insulting. Maybe I'm upset because high Batting Average requires &nbsp;talent that steroids didn't directly affect. &nbsp;Watching record after record being broken by cheaters may have made me hold on tighter to the ones they hadn't fully tainted.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eWnjQbVp5VM/TtRFHWJ48lI/AAAAAAAAARE/XJopRZXXqBw/s1600/understanding20sabermetrics.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eWnjQbVp5VM/TtRFHWJ48lI/AAAAAAAAARE/XJopRZXXqBw/s320/understanding20sabermetrics.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br />Hearing the arguments against batting average made me research its true value. I will only concede one point in which batting average doesn't matter--the lead off hitter in an inning. Then, and only then, is batting average completely unworthy of statistical consideration. &nbsp;The lead off man of an inning must get on base. It doesn't matter how. After he is on base, that's when average matters in the next batter. A single will move him from first to third. A walk will not. &nbsp;If the lead of hitter steals second, or makes it to second base on a double or throwing error, a single by the next batter will probably score him. A walk will not.<br /><br />Many baseball statisticians have already picked up on this line of thinking and include numbers such as Average with Runners In Scoring Position (RISP) or Average With Runners On Base. These stats are nice to show what a player has done with runners on base, but overall, their average over career with runners on base is the same as their overall batting average. &nbsp;In other words, statisticians are unnecessarily shrinking the sample size because they believe in a myth called "clutch hitting." If a batter's performance was considerably altered by high pressure situations, he wouldn't be in the big leagues. Players who can't keep their composure in clutch situations are a liability. If they suddenly get better when something important is on the line, they're otherwise lazy. Both bad signs in a ballplayer.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Mhx9lZcI58c/TtRF3H_4jTI/AAAAAAAAARM/A2tTNs9ZMBw/s1600/Hits.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Mhx9lZcI58c/TtRF3H_4jTI/AAAAAAAAARM/A2tTNs9ZMBw/s1600/Hits.jpg" /></a></div><br /><br />If runners are on second and third with two outs, which is better to have, a player with a .400 OBP, or a .300 hitter? &nbsp;What if this batter was followed by a pitcher who was incapable of hitting? In Kansas City, I grew up when our number nine hitter was Brent Mayne. &nbsp;If he were up next, their opportunity to score the runners would mostly be reliant on a hit by the batter before him in the lineup. A walk would likely result in nothing but three stranded runners. In fact, if it was early in the game and the pitcher was smart, he'd walk whoever this theoretical batter was and take his chances with the pitcher or Brent Mayne. Take into account the psychological power of a hit off a pitcher.&nbsp;As my dad said, hits are more exciting.&nbsp;It causes the fielders to exert themselves and generates more opportunities for mistakes on the part of the defense. Not just contact, but base hits. &nbsp;Fielders have to chase balls to the wall, dive for short fly balls, try to spear line drives, and failure to do so may end up as extra bases or easier runs.<br /><br />Different statistics have different importance for different members of a team. &nbsp;On Base Percentage is important for everyone. &nbsp;Batting Average is important for everyone on a team, but not every time they step into the batter's box. &nbsp;I can't defend the importance people place on RBIs, but it's disheartening to see other valuable stats getting shunned because there are more precise indicators of overall player value. It's like saying doubles don't matter because home runs are better.<br /><br />The flaw in SABRmetrics is its contempt for situational baseball. &nbsp;Because all stats eventually flatten out over long periods of time, some baseball fans think that individual moment are completely irrelevant. You can see this if you watch the movie <i>Moneyball</i>, when Billy Beane tells his players to never bunt or steal bases. &nbsp;<i>Never?</i>&nbsp; That's just stupid. In the long run, sacrifice bunts may be statistically negligible. That doesn't justify losing a game because the manager didn't bunt home a run because it is <i>rarely </i>justified. &nbsp;To say stealing doesn't produce runs is weird too. Stealing bases is the sacrifice of OBP for Slugging Percentage. Sometimes, being on second is valuable when being on first is not. &nbsp;Most of the time bunts and steals are unnecessary. At times, even costly. But using ultimate language like "never" and "worthless"&nbsp;is an overcorrection resulting from the longtime&nbsp;under-appreciation&nbsp;of valuable information. Batting Average is now sneered at&nbsp;by hardcore baseball fans&nbsp;due to this overcorrection. It's just too much.<br /><br />Yes, OBP is better, but Batting Average matters.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AKdkLhaMXOo/TtRGno5GSVI/AAAAAAAAARU/302ucUECBqE/s1600/batting+average.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AKdkLhaMXOo/TtRGno5GSVI/AAAAAAAAARU/302ucUECBqE/s320/batting+average.jpg" width="233" /></a></div><br />http://blog.onehitkill.com/2011/11/batting-average-matters.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-197374546991759377Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:18:00 +00002011-10-07T09:02:33.556-05:00americaGood Ol DaysMurder rateNowadaysThe Good Ol' DaysThere were no good ol' days.<br /><br />The world has not gone to hell.<br /><br />Things are not worse "now-a-days."<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://artandhistory.house.gov/images/weekinhistory/new/lyonfight-full.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="223" src="http://artandhistory.house.gov/images/weekinhistory/new/lyonfight-full.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />To what utopian past are the people who make these claims comparing the present? When people talk about how bad things have gotten on the floor of Congress, that politics have "gone down the drain," do they really not know United States History? Do they not know that Charles Sumner was beaten with a cane on the Senate floor?&nbsp; I'm sure they are unaware that he was preceded in being beaten with a cane on the floor of Congress by <a href="http://artandhistory.house.gov/highlights.aspx?action=view&amp;intID=233">Matthew Lyon</a>, <a href="http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/what-if/12344/Albert-Rust-kills-Horace-Greeley">Horace Greely</a> and <a href="http://artandhistory.house.gov/highlights.aspx?action=view&amp;intID=380">Josiah Grinnell</a>.&nbsp; That didn't even include people like William Stanberry who was caned in the street by Gov. Sam Houston or the multiple fistfights and brawls that have broken out in Congress.&nbsp; Those are just the canings.&nbsp; Do these people, who look back to America's Glory days, back before we supposedly "lost our way," consider it glorious to shoot political rivals to death? According to <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Affairs-Honor-National-Politics-Republic/dp/0300097557">Joanne Freeman</a>, at the beginnings of our United States, losers in political elections would often challenge the winner to a duel. In total, counting petty and professional quarrels, more than twenty politicians were killed in duels, most notably former Treasury Secretary and Founding Father Alexander Hamilton killed by then Vice President Aaron Burr. <br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Hamilton-burr-duel.jpg/320px-Hamilton-burr-duel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Hamilton-burr-duel.jpg/320px-Hamilton-burr-duel.jpg" /></a></div><br /><br />People talk of government corruption and, of course, about how bad things have <i>gotten</i>.<i>&nbsp;</i>Politicians certainly haven't&nbsp;<i>gotten</i>&nbsp;crooked. Have people forgotten Nixon already? It's somewhat understandable to forget that Warren G. Harding had the most <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_scandal">corrupt presidential administration</a> in our country's history, but Grant's was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_presidential_administration_scandals">nearly as bad</a> and no one seems to mention that. Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe, before either was president, committed what we would now consider treasonous acts by<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe#Ambassador_to_France"> feeding confidential information to the French government</a>. The aforementioned Aaron Burr was actually <a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/burr/burraccount.html">tried for treason</a> after trying to steal land from the United States and create his own kingdom. &nbsp;Eldbridge Gerry spawned the name "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering">Gerrymandering</a>" after manipulating the boundaries of his congressional district so much that it looked like a salamander. The last four men mentioned hold places on the roster of our revered team of Founding Fathers.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/The_Gerry-Mander_Edit.png/573px-The_Gerry-Mander_Edit.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/The_Gerry-Mander_Edit.png/573px-The_Gerry-Mander_Edit.png" width="305" /></a></div><br /><br />What time period was so crime-free that it now terrifies people to think about how much more violent the streets, schools and homes have become? It certainly hasn't been any time in the past 42 years. We have the <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Property_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg/518px-Property_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg.png">lowest crime rate since 1969</a>&nbsp;(when hippies were putting flowers in gun barrels) and the lowest violent crime rate since 1975. America certainly wasn't low crime from 1882 to 1968, when nearly five thousand men, women and children <a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingsstate.html">were lynched</a> to disenfranchise blacks. It's difficult to find an exact number of how many black women were raped during that time for the same purpose. It was a lot; virtually all unreported. I'm sure there aren't too many of the black community who look back and see glory days of years gone by.&nbsp; It seems that only whites can look back and see the utopian past, but it's not like white people were unscathed by crime.&nbsp; In the 1930s, eight FBI agents were killed by gangsters and outlaws. Oh, and wasn't that decade particularly high in crime because of <i>The </i>Great Depression? That doesn't sound so glorious. It was halted by the even less glorious attack on Pearl Harbor. If we go back further than 1868, we will find ourselves in the bloodiest war ever to wage on this continent, costing over a million casualties. Soldiers on both sides incessantly pillaged and looted. They sometimes raped and murdered civilians as they swept through towns. The people would just have to hope that armies didn't burn their whole town to the ground or use it as a war zone.&nbsp; It had all the things that you might expect from a war. The streets sure weren't safer then.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://images.encyclopedia.com/utility/image.aspx?id=2797467&amp;imagetype=Hero" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://images.encyclopedia.com/utility/image.aspx?id=2797467&amp;imagetype=Hero" /></a></div><br /><br />Folks who reminisce about the Good ol' Days believe that issues today have bred a new type of criminal.&nbsp; A bloodthirsty sociopath whose selfish desires have annulled his humanity. Only <i>today</i> could produce such a monster, they believe.&nbsp; For some reason, old folks seem to think psychos are more prevalent now. Psychopaths are hiding in all the old people's closets waiting to rape, kill and rob them.&nbsp; I guess they don't know about <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/baby-face-nelson">Baby Face Nelson</a>, who fired automatic weapons into crowds of women and children as he literally cackled with laughter. He also killed three of the aforementioned FBI agents. Dick Hickock and Perry Smith broke into a Kansas house in 1959 and <a href="http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-11-15/news/17938439_1_dick-hickock-prison-cellmate">blew the heads off a family of four</a> with a shotgun in a pathetic robbery. &nbsp; <a href="http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/streiber/273/gein_cf.htm">Ed Gein</a> killed women in the 1950s and kept their heads as bedposts and he wasn't the first, or the worst, serial killer. As near as we can tell, there hasn't been any change in percentage of serial killers in the population.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.gcpolice.org/History/Clutter/Clutter_Murder.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://www.gcpolice.org/History/Clutter/Clutter_Murder.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br />When people claim that scams are everywhere "nowadays," do they realize that Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme got its name from <a href="http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/03/0311_madoff/3.htm">Charles Ponzi</a>, a con man in the early 1900s? Con men used to mail instead of email, but the scams remain the same. &nbsp;The <a href="http://www.snopes.com/fraud/advancefee/nigeria.asp">Nigerian 419 scam</a> used to be called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Prisoner">Spanish Prisoner</a> in the late 19th century. Scam tactics date back to at least 300BCE when Ancient Greeks perfected <a href="http://blog.garycorby.com/2009/02/ancient-greek-insurance-scams.html">insurance scams on Maritime vessels</a>.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/ponzi%282%29.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/ponzi%282%29.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br />Like I said before, it seems that only white people talk about the good old days, and it mostly seems to have existed in 1950s and maybe early 60s. Think <a href="http://www.amctv.com/shows/mad-men">Mad Men</a>. It amazes me that women say anything about any time other than the last 20 years as being anything but degrading, but they do. &nbsp;Old women frequently accuse the world of going to "hell in a handbasket." &nbsp;I guess they liked it when they were known as nothing but housewives and secretaries, and could be nothing but housewives or secretaries. &nbsp;There were exceptions, yes, but not too many. During that same time, the richest were <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/11/18/a-91-percent-tax-rate-really/">taxed 91% of their income</a>, so it's not like Obama's tax hikes are anything but wimpy when compared to taxes under the Eisenhower administration. I suppose people didn't care about having their <a href="http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/wiretapping-and-j-edgar-hoover/">phones illegally tapped</a> by Hoover and his FBI, having their first amendment rights trampled on, being ostracized or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist">blacklisted </a>for being communist or even <i>accused</i>&nbsp;of being a communist. Do these old white men not remember that the world almost ended during the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis">Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962</a>?&nbsp;We almost <i>blew up the world</i>. That is not an exaggeration. For two weeks, almost every American was<a href="http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110331225958AA0Ia0S"> glued to the TV</a>, preparing, if necessary, to die, while the government lied and said school children could cover their heads under their desks to avoid serious injury from a thermonuclear explosion. Good Ol' Days indeed.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Operation_Upshot-Knothole_-_Badger_001.jpg/250px-Operation_Upshot-Knothole_-_Badger_001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Operation_Upshot-Knothole_-_Badger_001.jpg/250px-Operation_Upshot-Knothole_-_Badger_001.jpg" /></a></div><br /><br />Looking back at writings from the past, we see that a group from every generation has argued this point. People are always fearing for the future and claiming that some <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=dBqPVWAD51cC&amp;pg=PA6&amp;lpg=PA6&amp;dq=founding+fathers+impending+doom&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Kw9rQox8D9&amp;sig=7Z8nkHWWrAA6LAC2H0vYPf_L_ag&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=gzuLTq6OJsqIsgLalqCXBA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=2&amp;ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=founding%20fathers%20impending%20doom&amp;f=false">great doom is unavoidable</a>. &nbsp;So far, for the past 250 years, we've managed to avoid this unavoidable doom. And while we were fending it off, we also improved every aspect of living.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2011/10/good-ol-days.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-229481717290712654Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:22:00 +00002011-04-20T19:46:56.861-05:00ArtworkBatmanDark KnightFrank MillerWTF Happened to Frank Miller?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="background-color: transparent; clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span id="internal-source-marker_0.143545214086771" style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Remember the late 90’s sitcom trend of parents failing to correctly use &nbsp;the youth lingo? They would hopelessly use words like “hip” and “groovy” when giving their teenage children the low down on the birds and the bees. Kids would roll their eyes, say “oh, Dad” while the laugh track would mock him. From the release of </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Dark Knight Strikes Again </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">to present day, Frank Miller has turned himself into the lame dad of the comic book world. He keeps attempting to captivate them with a hardcore Batman, but has lost all touch with what younger generations find interesting.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><img height="303px;" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/9qjtb5m2Or27fLYhCWssGKo3_lHBBPb1WZCARl-jYEQOdtk2N525Qnl_ZpGqJR8CoCawc3tWKqD4CYLnXTNC-wBKGqgwAajt0cq68VLPOLpbEBR_3yk" width="200px;" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">By now, most people know who he is--writer/artist of </span><a href="http://comicsandoimage.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/sin_city_silent_night_15.png?w=990&amp;h=1524"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sin City</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, </span><a href="http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/dark-knight-returns.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Dark Knight Returns</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and </span><a href="http://www.2-clicks-comics.com/images/category_comic_strip/300%20comics.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">300</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. &nbsp;In the early 80’s he was one of the first to start writing “gritty” comics. He redefined </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Daredevil</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The </span><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Lf1ycYAH0As/TMhjP6TpwgI/AAAAAAAATVc/ruKcFCtJCHE/s1600/Daredevil_183-09.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Punisher</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">,</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Batman</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. From 1991-1998, he was, in my opinion, the best comic book creator alive. His comics mixed heroism with exaggerated action, hard-boiled cynicism, and wit. Characters took equal time thinking of clever ways to conquer goals as they did physically pummeling enemies. With </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sin City</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, Miller created a distinct, high contrast, </span><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_TF95Lotq_Xs/S74T_gpgLBI/AAAAAAAAFbw/Pz1z7DGLSqc/s1600/Sin_City_Silent_Night_09-758006.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">art style</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> that was unique in comics. &nbsp;The hard crisp lines separating black from white were nearly devoid of the typical 90’s comic book crosshatching that made Jim Lee famous.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Something changed in 1997 with </span><a href="http://www.mk-goldenmoon.com/Comics/Sin%20City/Family%20Values/Sin%20City%20-%20Family%20Values%20c.000.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sin City: Family Values</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, or slightly before. &nbsp;&nbsp;His sense of goofy humor began crawling into inappropriate moments of his testosterone drenched Sin City world. For the first time, humor trumped the noir tone. For some reason, Miller thought it would be a good idea for Miho, an assassin, to roll around on roller blades for the entire comic. &nbsp;Miller’s previous Dwight storyline, </span><a href="http://www.mk-goldenmoon.com/Comics/Sin%20City/The%20Big%20Fat%20Kill/Sin%20City%20-%20The%20Big%20Fat%20Kill%201/Sin_City-The_Big_Fat_Kill_1_c01.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Big Fat Kill,</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> balanced humor and action more effectively. His art, also, was noticeably diminished from his previous books. Family Values lost most of Miller’s hard black and white compositions and introduced </span><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GqSu_jhnQg0/TAXmasoAifI/AAAAAAAAAXU/Gv7i3x0jZEU/s1600/Sin+City+-+Family+Values+p.088.gif"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">scribbly cross-hatching</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. &nbsp;The main character, Dwight, no longer wore the hard outlined trench coat. Miller replaced it with a knee-length fur coat with a loosely scribbled silhouette. Miller began drawing </span><a href="http://images.wikia.com/sincity/images/8/8c/Dwight_vito.png"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">faces with lines</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> that contoured the natural lines of the face, giving his characters the weathered appearance of characters beyond their years. It’s the cardinal rule of shading faces: each line ads a year to character’s life. &nbsp;Comic book artists usually shade faces with straight lines that cannot be mistaken for wrinkles. The same way Miller </span><a href="http://mrossana.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/wolverine_1.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">did in the 80s</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><img height="143px;" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/PQYs5wKO1mQ46D7cwwYh-4yujFBjaGsZZ2llEAJeETp_zIaohbaMFPX2_cB8bbKwdYOBwQSWHyN3nswpsWq7qXCkME1uqu1H6kAW6IveOHWl87dXRag" width="300px;" /><img height="193px;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Dg9zu98aQMTZpa0aKbs2MOI7Mr2cFBJNAyoOk3bg4b0NThA-DeHJm7KiSWjznNGvk6xWw6MbiuDLfsctMAq8tys8RAZDYjdJIK6hpS0oju2sEYwEPAE" width="250px;" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Miller created several quality comics for the next few years (even with his new, looser style), including the wonderful </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">300 </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">in ‘98 and, to a lesser extent, </span><a href="http://www.mk-goldenmoon.com/Comics/Sin%20City/Hell%20And%20Back%20-%20A%20Sin%20City%20Love%20Story/Hell%20And%20Back%20-%20A%20Sin%20City%20Love%20Story%201/Hell_And_Back_1_c01.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sin City: Hell and Back</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> in ‘99. &nbsp;That all fell apart in 2001 with the release of </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Dark Knight Strikes Again,</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> or as DC marketers pompously called it, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">DK2</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. &nbsp;The goofy title should have been a warning sign. Frank Miller said in an interview that he wanted to make the comic have more of a </span><a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Frank_Miller"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">cartoony </span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">feel. &nbsp;I didn’t like this idea, considering the first Dark Knight book had a forlorn, gloomy tone. Still, I thought, there could be hope. “Cartoony” made me think of Rick Burchett’s clean crisp lines in </span><a href="http://michelfiffe.com/columns/ty_templeton/images/23.BatmanJoker.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Batman Adventures</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> or Frank Quitely’s minimalist but precise artwork in </span><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hN7X5gUktas/TJugkT-QGwI/AAAAAAAAENo/GcyjC3xxISg/s1600/All_Star_Superman_6_1024x768.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">All Star Superman</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Miller gave us neither. We were exposed to the worst art I’ve ever seen in a professionally made comic book, surpassing the previous champion crap-pile of Mitch Byrd’s pencils in Generation X </span><a href="http://scrimbrown.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/generationx23.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">23</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. &nbsp;Miller must have a different interpretation of “cartoony” than I do, because </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">DK2 </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">looked like a thirteen year old got a box of crayons and tried to draw like Frank Miller. And then got bored. And then started doodling.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">I first noticed&nbsp;how inconsistent and sloppy the inks were. Miller didn’t even pretend to make contour outlines of characters. &nbsp;They had jagged starts and halts with inconsistent thickness. &nbsp;John Romita Sr. once shared inking tips with Wizard magazine. He demanded that inkers control the thickness of their lines. It could be crucial to the illusion of depth and making the foreground distinguishable from the background. Miller had been able to abide by this for the past thirty years. &nbsp;All of the sudden, he was either incapable or too lazy to bother. &nbsp;His lines strayed off characters’ bodies like loose threads. One internet review of the comic generously labeled the art as “hastily drawn.” &nbsp;I would call it a big pile of shit. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Characters’ limbs and appendages changed size. Their hands would increase or decrease in size depending on how much time Miller took to draw them. Same with feet and heads. For instance, look at the size of Batman’s hands in </span><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8z0ZaDF7tTQ/S19wrB6gChI/AAAAAAAAAjc/YcDyPnaBE5o/s320/Dark+Knight+Strikes+Again.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">these panels</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> below.</span></div><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><img height="311px;" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/wMhIlCgSBRY2vUjqvN1NZSzokoblMGFYcegy6i2IkDcIlmnRCpDxJX9HHQv8vfRZeEAu-FO21ZbaoRrEgt-RhJY6YbfPTIGubqPsZ2rV7N1bgo7L96Q" width="200px;" /><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">According to the perspective of his stance in the top panel, his left hand should be smaller than his right. &nbsp;It is obviously larger. It’s also TWO AND A HALF TIMES the size of his head. &nbsp;By the way, he’s also punching on Superman there, who’s splotchy and shadowed for no apparent reason. &nbsp;Frank Miller also seems to have decided that being beaten up makes you look like you spilled an ink well on your face.</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What about </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><a href="http://www.comicbookbrain.com/_imagery/_2010_06_07/frank-miller-wonder-woman.jpg">this</a>?</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><img height="319px;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/caNShyj7GqjUfasfWYHtrh6M6mq9OaALes9yzouyvdeEAFdi_t6QaUN_hIDodgi4910uUT-hNlbmk7S29sTp5QrLcGK0HPQfCp10hSget9bn9XghvY0" width="200px;" /><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Wonder Woman’s thighs belong to Kathy Bates and she looks like a transvestite. The laces on her forearms don’t match the angle of her arm. And what is up with her triceps becoming one with her torso? &nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">He correctly determined that he couldn’t draw hands, so he frequently hides them in this book. Sometimes Miller doesn’t want to draw hands or feet, so he hides them behind </span><a href="http://www.comicbookdaily.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/dkr2_plas.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">truly awful artwork</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><img height="338px;" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/tpQmmVh8nMeCizVvChVC8UjIWldFzyzzRrPhGtlBQV7Nhpvh11nFwMg0wa-Cy90AbwwfTXO2DaVO_Nv69KolBQXvXRqe193SRzpx4r8PdusoIt3ejqc" width="285px;" /><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><div style="background-color: transparent; clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Miller doesn’t even bother to make sure he doesn’t accidentally ink the torso over the top of an arm.</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Then we have the </span><a href="http://www.cosmicteams.com/legion/img/elseworlds/batman-strikes1.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">worst drawing of the Joker </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">ever</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></div><div style="background-color: transparent; clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><img height="187px;" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/1FQ1U9qJ9QU9ppzzeSDpcgoMkUDKoGid-a8Ps-dBsDtybq-9VBPdc_ew6uiXFwm0I20kkw23xaQv5q3rATpAR3p_WO3ZVhV8AXTIsvtqtUh_QYcegj4" width="250px;" /><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><div style="background-color: transparent; clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> I just don’t know what to say about that one--moving on.</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">How about the man of steel when he’s not a giant ink blot? Still </span><a href="http://i38.tinypic.com/fdekk1.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">sucks</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><img height="312px;" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/UyUCzK-93BZA4edXAwXsgG_aGffKzsVqIIHKXAss-gyP5G7p7TQFSKg655rn1-NxzcTBhYI-wpPxSaTtPq2Vn34tm2qq2iEp3UtWplJtxwxSZkd63-I" width="200px;" /><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">This too, is so bad that it could pass without comment. I’m just not going to let it. Superman looks 80 years old and Japanese, he has a 24 inch waist, once again, an arm becomes a torso at the bicep, and the fingers on his left hand don’t match the angle of his hand.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Look at </span><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Xf1KPssmdcE/SxIS5cgVyeI/AAAAAAAAB40/eP_5yiNuOIk/s1600/dark+knight+strikes+back.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Robin’s forearms</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> in the first panel. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><img height="359px;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WAZpbZiZ-BDDMVLVj6jM2CBuU_iGhRXPImYgEElnOY_a18Qg9Hk_rJyGnjr9AFADEB1ooeZd7zN9O48qlAncP0KvTC3URw_hdLBDcBX3GJFIfmwqWYA" width="217px;" /><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hell, look at any panel. The art makes </span><a href="http://www.heromachine.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/liefeldgirl2.gif"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Rob Liefeld</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> look </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">good.</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Most cartoony comics have distinct colors to make up for the lack of shading. Lynn Varley’s colors are muted and dull. I feel bad for ragging on her, though. She didn’t have much to work with. Still, I see colorists like </span><a href="http://eldelgado.deviantart.com/"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Edgar Delgado</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> elevate all the artwork they touch.</span></div><span style="background-color: transparent; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span></div><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Xf1KPssmdcE/SxIS5cgVyeI/AAAAAAAAB40/eP_5yiNuOIk/s1600/dark+knight+strikes+back.jpg">This page</a></span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> from </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">DK2 </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">also exemplifies the worst writing in comic books. It’s goofy, like the rest of the story. &nbsp;Anything that Miller thought would be cool was so obviously awful, I’m surprised DC’s editor didn’t cancel the book at the script’s first draft.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Xf1KPssmdcE/SxIS5cgVyeI/AAAAAAAAB40/eP_5yiNuOIk/s1600/dark+knight+strikes+back.jpg"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><br /></span></a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">I’ve been holding out hope that my beloved Frank Miller would pull himself out of the creative tailspin he’s been in for the past decade or so. &nbsp;It hasn’t happened and, worse, he’s degenerating. Frank Miller has stayed afloat by retreading the glory of his 80s and 90s creation, getting royalties from his reprinted comics, selling film rights to his comics, and doing one-shots on characters he perfected decades ago like Daredevil and Batman. &nbsp;He has since forgotten how to write Batman, as proven in the awful All-Star Batman and Robin, which was cancelled before it was finished. It was supposed to come back this spring after a two year hiatus, but I haven’t heard anything.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Xf1KPssmdcE/SxIS5cgVyeI/AAAAAAAAB40/eP_5yiNuOIk/s1600/dark+knight+strikes+back.jpg"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><br /></span></a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">All Star Batman and Robin has a moment where Batman cackles with laughter. That’s right, cackles. Once you let that sink in, Robin makes the comment “He may be faking that voice, but his laughter still creeps the crap out of me.” As bad as that line sounds, it’s actually worse. &nbsp;I don’t need to dwell on how artificial “creeps the crap out of me” sounds, so I’ll move on to the context. What does he mean “still”? It’s not like Robin ever mentions being creeped out beforehand and Batman doesn’t commonly go around cackling like a madman. &nbsp;And the whole idea of Batman creeping someone out with a laugh was </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">stolen </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">from </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Batman the Animated Series</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> when he does it to </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLvxIy8hET4"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">freak out Harley</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> as a stalling tactic. It is not and never should be a character trait as Miller made it.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Xf1KPssmdcE/SxIS5cgVyeI/AAAAAAAAB40/eP_5yiNuOIk/s1600/dark+knight+strikes+back.jpg"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><br /></span></a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">In an earlier page, when Robin doesn’t know who Batman is, Batman answers: “What are you dense? Are you retarded or something? Who the hell do you think I am? I’m the goddamn Batman.” This is not the tough-love mentor we know in love. He’s a petty, mean-spirited asshole.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Xf1KPssmdcE/SxIS5cgVyeI/AAAAAAAAB40/eP_5yiNuOIk/s1600/dark+knight+strikes+back.jpg"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><br /></span></a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Other than the pathetic attempt to overwrite the Batman he helped to create in </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Year_One"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Batman: Year One</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, which removed every ounce of camp from the Adam West era and transformed Batman into the Dark Knight we could appreciate, Miller has tried his hand at directing. &nbsp;Which actually pisses me off more than it should. &nbsp;For </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sin City</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (2005), Robert Rodriguez kept as close to the comic books as possible while Frank Miller in his “co-director” status, helped actors become his characters. I greatly enjoyed </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sin City</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, but it replaced the tone of the comic with camp. This was the first time in 20 years that Miller had let his work be adapted to another medium. &nbsp;He said it was because the Hollywood process had destroyed his ideas in the past and he didn’t want to put up with it anymore (Robocop 2 &amp; 3). &nbsp;Makes sense. However, his next directorial project was to adapt Will Eisner’s </span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831887/combined"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Spirit</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. &nbsp;Miller did exactly what he hated about his previous film efforts--he took someone else’s idea and destroyed it, changed it to fit his own style and ignored the creator’s intent. &nbsp;Eisner is a legend whose image is fiercely defended by rabid comic book fundamentalists. It’s not like we wouldn’t notice how much the movie sucked. I also checked out Frank Miller’s storyboards for The Spirit because it’s the only art he’s done in about five years, not counting a few pin-ups in the backs of his friends’ comics. &nbsp;</span><a href="http://mimg.ugo.com/200812/28258/spirit-frank-miller-sketch-3.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Spirit </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">artwork</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is awful and it pretty much only consists of guys shooting at the camera with two guns.</span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Xf1KPssmdcE/SxIS5cgVyeI/AAAAAAAAB40/eP_5yiNuOIk/s1600/dark+knight+strikes+back.jpg"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><img height="159px;" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/A_WhLLfLIcvjzDjJRj7cq4x3d5wbKA49-tMSqEgbvtOvG6RBXhFcrun58fSMESTj2oqmPgU7OsaQLM4_VNdNS61ontq1_gBTSmOasgDXwx1xmcrTYxE" width="300px;" /></span></div><div style="background-color: transparent; clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">From 2001 until this day, I’ve wondered if Frank Miller has a medical condition, because his art has taken a stylistic turn for the worse, much like Picasso’s. &nbsp;It’s sloppy. It’s inconsistent. It’s lazy--as if he were trying to avoid the most difficult details and distort the human form so much that we wouldn’t realize he could no longer draw it with consistent precision. In the most recent months, his hollowed cheek bones might also indicate an illness. &nbsp;As a human, I certainly hope he’s just being a lazy artist, because that can be corrected. &nbsp;But his work has meant so much to me for so long, that a part of me wants it to be beyond his control, just because I’d hate for these last ten years to be the lasting impression he gives a generation of comic readers.</span></div><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></div>http://blog.onehitkill.com/2011/04/wtf-happened-to-frank-miller.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-8616024377683880740Tue, 08 Feb 2011 22:38:00 +00002011-04-20T19:47:16.082-05:00atheismfounding fathersintellectual honestyreligionAtheists Try to Steal the Founders TooI'm defensive when anyone proclaims on which side of modern issues "the Founders" would land. I wrote <a href="http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/02/founding-fathers-and-religion.html">a blog</a> last year about the religious right's blatant attempt to superimpose the founding fathers into their warped version of history. They inaccurately and perpetually try to convince the world that the U.S. Constitution was founded on Judeo-Christian values. They rarely bother giving evidence because it would require them to take quotes out of context. &nbsp;The truth is that the Constitution was formed by a group of great men who agreed that our government would be "godless" and to further express the idea, they amended the document to expressly restrict government involvement in religion and vice versa. When college drop out Sean Hannity or woefully uneducated and plagiaristic Glenn Beck claims we live in a Christian nation, I waste no time booing them from their undeserved stages. When the well-educated Newt Gingrich or Bill O'Reilly make the same claims, I demolish them with <i>evidence</i>. I don't care <i>why </i>they have twisted the truth to fit their ideologies; it is a despicable display of intellectual dishonesty, whether or not they are sincere.<br /><br />That brings me to my disappointment in Dr. Richard Dawkins. In his book <i>The God Delusion</i>&nbsp;he devotes a few pages to the foundation of the United States and the men behind it. He too attempts to dispel the illusion that the religious right would thrust upon us. &nbsp;Dawkins, however, doesn't seem well-versed enough in early American history to succeed without resulting to falsehoods. He seems to have relied on the testimony of more heavy-handed atheist writers and printed what they told him.&nbsp; Dawkins declares at the head of the section, "Certainly their writings on religion in their own time leave me in no doubt that most of them would have been atheists in ours." That sentence sets the tone for the argument he lays before us over the next few pages. To give some perspective, a "few" pages in a book equals the amount of words dedicated to complete argumentative essays. Even though the section about the founders was aside the main point of his chapter, he dedicates more time to it than I do to most blogs.<br /><br />I believe at least <i>one</i> impartial party should give an accurate refutation of his historical evidence. So far, only creationists have argued against the veracity of Dawkins' use of the Founding Fathers. I would rather people not get their facts from a group who dismisses solid evidence and considers it virtuous. (note: I have run into creationist websites that <a href="http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/the_god_delusion2.html">purposefully misquote</a> Dawkins to make his point even less sustainable. It is another form of intellectual dishonesty and I doubt they even read the book.)<br /><br />As with many atheists, Dawkins primarily uses Thomas Jefferson in his argument because Jefferson was an atheist or extremely skeptical deist.&nbsp; Either way, he did not believe that God was an intervening force in the affairs of man.&nbsp; Dawkins makes the same mistake that his opponents do. He&nbsp;fallaciously&nbsp;aggregates the beliefs of the Founders. His argument considers them parts of a hive mind with intellectual convictions in line with those of Thomas Jefferson. This was not the case. All of the men at the Constitutional Convention had their own opinions and frequently disagreed with each other. &nbsp;Dawkins ignores this and by using very few examples, gives the impression that the founders were collectively anti-religious. <br /><br />He makes an interesting observation about different eras perceiving religion differently, but overstates the difference by calling the founders atheists. &nbsp;Christianity now bears little resemblance to Christianity of the Enlightenment and I touched on the subject in a <a href="http://blog.onehitkill.com/2011/01/why-america-is-losing-its-religion.html">previous blog</a>. The intellectual Christians of the founding generation generally rejected the concept of miracles, conceded that the Bible was corrupted by a&nbsp;millennia&nbsp;of crooked priests, dismissed many fables in the Bible that were borrowed from other lore, they <i>didn't </i>treat the Bible literally, recognized its inconsistencies, and wholeheartedly believed that the only way to understand Christ's divinity was through <i>reason</i>. Though dissimilar to today's Christianity, they still believed that Jesus was God.<br /><br />Dawkins leaves out a considerable amount of information in order to continue to more integral points of the book's primary argument: the existence of God. By doing so, he only quotes Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams and James Madison.&nbsp; First of all, these four men do not represent the Founders' beliefs. There were 56 delegates to the Constitutional Convention who all had their own religious beliefs.&nbsp; They made the United States Constitution to protect their right to those beliefs. Worse yet, three out of the four Founders used by Dawkins were <i>obviously </i>believers in a divine force that guided the actions of men. To say they were secularists is perfectly accurate in all four cases. To say they were atheists is blatantly false.<br /><br />Adams was Ambassador to England during the Constitutional Convention. He was still an influential presence at the convention because of his <i>Thoughts on Government</i>, widely read among the delegates and many of his ideas made it into the final draft of the Constitution. Even if Adams could have been at the Constitutional Convention, he would have had no interest in forcing his religious beliefs on anyone.&nbsp; He said in a letter to his brother-in-law about his ministerial education,"I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself."&nbsp; John Adams could be anti-religious at times and openly doubted the truth to great passages in the Bible, but <i>never </i>rejected his belief in God.<br /><br />Jefferson was not at the Constitutional Convention either. Though he corresponded with James Madison regularly at the time, he did not have an active hand in the debates. &nbsp;Jefferson is often included in debates about the framing of the Constitution because the founders were essentially arguing over the correct interpretation of the Declaration of Independence, written by Jefferson. The founders argued for months over the correct way to honor the "spirit of '76." Jefferson was a non-believer and fought very hard for the separation of Church and State. He rejected Christianity and all superstition.&nbsp; He is the only person on the list that could even possibly be considered an Atheist.<br /><br />Benjamin Franklin, by that late point in his life, was religious and believed in divine intervention, though not the divinity of Christ.&nbsp; Benjamin Franklin was a Christian...then a Deist...then...something. &nbsp;He was never an atheist. He rejected Christianity quite early in his life and never went back to it. By the time he attended the Constitutional Convention, he could most accurately be described as a follower of Judaism. &nbsp;He believed there was a divine presence that actively guided goings-on in the world and considered the Bible's tales as a moral guide. &nbsp;He appreciated Jesus as a moral philosopher, but no more than that. During the Constitutional Convention he even requested prayer be said to focus the delegation's efforts.<br /><br />James Madison was probably the most fervent in his efforts to create a wall of separation between church and state, but he was a&nbsp;<i>clearly</i>&nbsp;devout Christian.&nbsp; This is why I'm so confused as to why Dawkins chose to include him in a list of people he considered "atheists." &nbsp;Madison is the biggest ally to the cause so there's no need to twist the fact that he was Christian. &nbsp;He <a href="http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm">wrote volumes about the separation</a> of church and state and vehemently defended it all his life.&nbsp; He went to church too. &nbsp;Why Dawkins felt a need to claim him as an atheist, I don't understand.<br /><br />In the end, Dawkins makes the point that no matter what the founders actually were, agnostics, atheists, theists, or deists, they were, above all, <i>secularists</i>. Above all else they wanted Religion and Government in opposite corners of the room.&nbsp; For the most part, that is true.&nbsp; Dawkins stumbled, groped and misinformed his way to a good point.&nbsp; Because the Founders realized the importance of their role in the creation of the first secular nation, they preserved their writings on the subject.&nbsp; It's very easy to get copies of the [almost] complete writings of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams. They can speak for themselves. There's no need to lie about it.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2011/02/atheists-try-to-steal-founders-too.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-8785133461679142526Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:12:00 +00002011-01-28T15:59:26.990-06:00egyptfundingjordanmiddle eastobamatunisiausaObama Caused the Revolts in EgyptFor several years, the United States has given Egypt billions for the promotion of democracy. We believed that if we ensured Egypt's financial dependence on us, they would be forced to listen to our recommendations about installing democracy. Because those efforts have failed for decades, Obama began to pull funding from Egypt to invest it in more worthwhile prospects.<br /><br />The United States still heavily supports the Egyptian military with around $1.25 billion per year. However, we used to give $45 million to programs for Governing Justly and Democratically.&nbsp; Under Obama, it dropped to $20 million.<br /><br />In the past few days many Egyptians Tweeted about the reasons for their protest and how poor things have gotten recently.&nbsp; They blame President Mubarak for the deteriorating economy and conditions. They recognize his increasingly brutish tactics used to squelch independent thought and individual success. Coupled with the overthrow of their next door neighbor's dictator in Tunisia, the Egyptians feel quite empowered to reform the government in the way they see fit. I'm <i>not</i> saying it's a good thing.&nbsp; It's too early for that. Based on the <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/obama-cuts-funds-to-promote-democracy-in-egypt-by-50-1.284490?trailingPath=2.169,2.216,">funding cuts by Obama</a>, Jordan was predestined to protest and possibly revolt.<br /><br />If Obama was truly committed to democracy in Egypt he would cut funding to the Egyptian Military as well.&nbsp; After all, President Mubarak will inevitably use them against the protesters (I just heard that he has called them in).<br /><br />I'm intrigued by all the events that led to this and how they will turn out.&nbsp; I'm far from convinced that the overthrow of two semi-secular dictatorships and replacing them, almost certainly, with yet another Muslim theocracy will lead to anything more sanguine in the Middle East.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2011/01/obama-caused-revolts-in-egypt.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-5021764983234944771Tue, 04 Jan 2011 00:11:00 +00002011-01-03T23:49:49.766-06:00americaChristianityreligionWhy America is Losing its ReligionAll recent studies about religion in America <a href="http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists">show a steady decrease in religious beliefs</a> and an increase in non-belief and atheism. Distress has grown among American Christians who fear an Atheistic revolution that will seduce righteous youth and negate their religious majority. Fox News has launched an all out assault on anything Atheist. Ringleaders Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/billo-tries-toss-washington-governor">demonize atheists</a> and literally <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEuAVgmWt0U">blame the country's problems on them</a>--a la Salem witch trial style. Newt Gingrich openly admitted in his new book that he wants Congress to vote for Pro-Christian laws, a completely unconstitutional and anti-freedom concept. They have opened up with both barrels against non-believers, science, and the first amendment. The biggest fighters are mostly "mainstream" Catholics, Christians and Evangelicals. The "unaffiliated" Christians seem to acknowledge the rights of non-religious.<br /><br />There are two dominant reasons why more Americans are turning away from religion. The two reasons work together. The first reason is because the religious have developed a sense of "literalism." American Christians, <a href="http://science.jrank.org/pages/8864/Creationism-History-Creationism.html">in the past two-hundred years</a>, have demanded that their followers believe in the infallible and literal nature of the Bible. If the Bible says something happened, then by God, it happened just the way it was written. This mentality was not around during the early days of Christianity. It's roots were sown during Reformation when Martin Luther encouraged a personal relationship with God. When commoners began directly accessing the Bible (and believed they wouldn't go to purgatory for their actions) they started interpreting events differently from Roman Catholic Dogmatic law. Without access to other points of view or philosophies or leaders to help interpret the Bible, many sects began taking it literally. In America, literalism seemed to take a great hold on the country from 1800-1900. By comparing the texts of political leaders from the foundation of the country to those after the civil war (both groups primarily Christian), a literal fanaticism slowly tightened its grip on the country in between. The critical analysis of the Bible by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison was replaced by Biblical authority over our national sovereignty and blind faith in its text. Around this time, "In God We Trust" was first printed on our money. Not just any God: The Christian God.<br /><br />Literalism creates a dilemma for any thinking person. The events in the Bible, if we are to believe them literally, are at times contradictory and other times absurd. For instance, most people recognize the inconsitency of the Gospels (i.e. retelling of Jesus's story). Paul wrote the story about 50 A.D. and was around during the life of Jesus. He <i>never</i> mentions the Resurrection. Yet, 40-50 years later, John gives a detailed description of Jesus's ascension to Heaven and the miraculous Resurrection. Most people would realize something as important as a man rising from the dead would not escape Paul's attention. Some more astute observers would recognize Genesis has countless inconsistencies resulting from its four different authors, yet many Christians hold to the notion that Genesis was written by a single author, Moses, and it is infallible truth. What about the scholars who have found language that didn't exist during the time the Book of Samuel was supposedly written? What about the fact that Jesus wasn't even officially "Divine" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea">until 325 A.D</a> because too many Christians disagreed with the premise? At the risk of going on too long, just look at <a href="http://www.chooonthis.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/infographic-coDesign-contradictions-in-the-bible_bigger.jpg">this chart</a> or this <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html">list</a>. It will cause any thinking Christian to question the literal infallibility of the Bible. Instead of reacting reasonably to queries about their faith, evangelicals respond with militant animosity, condemning anything that throws a monkey wrench into their outlandish belief system.<br /><br />"Christianity" did not start the way literalists/fundamentalists/evangelicals would have you believe. Jesus never said he was the son of God and his followers argued whether he actually was for generations. Jesus preached that people need not appease God, we should rather attend to issues on earth, give to and take care of the poor, spread the wealth, love thy neighbor, don't give into selfishness, etc. God wasn't involved in the finite actions of humans. God was fine up in heaven doing his thing; he didn't need incessant praise. He's <i>God</i>, not a petty human. Humans needed to improve themselves, not beg God for help. Instead of following through with his message, within two generations of his death Jesus was worshipped as God himself, believed to have come back to life, and supposedly demanded fervent and active allegiance to God. A fuller critical analysis of the life and beliefs of Jesus can be found <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/thomas_sheehan/firstcoming/">HERE</a>.<br /><br />Again, when questioned about the motivations behind Biblical texts and why several Christian communities saw fit to include them as holy texts, most American Christians demand blind compliance with the texts' messages. Instead of explaining to followers that these inconsistencies and absurd events are metaphors for proper Christian behavior or that it was written to fulfill Prophecy and not to be considered a factual retelling, or that the various books were written by competing communities with agendas of their own, not individuals, thereby convoluting Jesus's message, church leaders tell the curious to believe in the Bible or risk damnation in Hell for all eternity. Fear of a supernatural justice system keeps hold of many. However, blind compliance doesn't jive with anyone who has a brain, so most people will seek alternate explanations.<br /><br />The second reason for the loss of faith comes after Christian leaders and churches refuse to give adequate answers to reasonable questions due to their rejection of anything contradicting Biblical literalism. This turns people to look things up for themselves. With all this wonderful technology, online access to scholarly studies, treatises, books, essays, and dissertations, they are quickly exposed to historical interpretations of the Bible, alternative viewpoints, and scientific evidence that thoroughly dismantles a literalistic interpretation of the Bible. They are <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402199.html">exposed to massive Atheist communities</a> who openly welcome new members and reassure former Christians that they are not alone, and they will not be condemned to damnation for turning their backs on a nonsensical belief system.<br /><br />We need look no further than the Middle East to see a culture deformed by literalistic religious tyranny mounting strength on the backs of blind followers. This is a bit unappealing to Christians and they claim to be above it. However, colonial settlers fled religious persecution from <i>Christians,</i> not Muslims. Due to fear of a recurrence in Christian persecution, our First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees no matter how hard fundamentalists and Fox News and Newt Gingrich try, they will not succeed in getting God into the law. For that wonderful inclusion by our founders, I say <i>God Bless America</i>. <br /><br />Judaism and Catholicism both reject literalism. Catholicism believes the Bible is "inerrant" but truth can be found in metaphor and allegory. Jews can actually disagree entirely with the Torah if they feel justified. They are encouraged to question everything. Judaism allows disagreements so extreme that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism">Jewish Atheism</a> recently evolved. Most Christians in America make their children choose literalism or the highway. "Literalism" is almost entirely an American phenomenon that has spread from Missions to third world countries. This type of Christianity is a self-perpetuating control mechanism that should be ignored and it appears that more and more people are starting to agree.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2011/01/why-america-is-losing-its-religion.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-1320445856411890496Sat, 01 Jan 2011 01:17:00 +00002011-01-06T01:09:37.860-06:00Kansas CityWaldo RapistPolice Still Pretend to Get it RightPolice interest me because of their necessity and their corruption.&nbsp; Many people have many sites dedicated to police corruption and essentially hating the police.&nbsp; That's not me.&nbsp; I think the vast majority of police are pretty decent guys, ego and all.&nbsp; Some police egos get too big and they like showing off how awesome they are.&nbsp; I see it regularly. You probably have seen your share of it.&nbsp; It's worse in cities. &nbsp;Many of our cops are burnt out and will do anything to get out of paperwork.&nbsp; Not many of them are there to <i>help</i> people.<br /><br />In Kansas City, I have been worn out by apathetic police.&nbsp; It's <a href="http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/kansas_city_police_set_familys_drapes_ablaze_in_no_knock_raid">disgraceful</a>.&nbsp; They then pretended to be doing something productive and it prompted me to write a <a href="http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/05/to-protect-and-serve-illusions.html">blog</a> about how they handled the Waldo rape press conference.&nbsp; They announced they had arrested a "person of interest" (whatever the hell that means, because it's not the same as a suspect) in the Waldo rape cases.&nbsp; He was charged with rapes from the 1980s.&nbsp; The police then forced him to shave his beard which he had for years, took his mugshot and then placed his mugshot side-by-side with a composite sketch of the Waldo rapist suspect.&nbsp; They then refused to take a single question on the current rapes investigation and ended the interviews when they received too many questions about the very subject they called the conference over. &nbsp;It was absurd.&nbsp; They made Kansas City residents believe they had caught the guy they'd been looking for.&nbsp; I loudly objected to how they handled the case, mistreated civilians, abused their power, and misled local residents.<br /><br />I was mostly convinced that the police did not catch the Waldo Rapist because of the descriptions given by the victims--black male, 6'0", 250lbs, pock-marked cheeks, and bad breath.&nbsp; The "person of interest" Bernard Jackson was 5'10", 180lbs, bearded at the time and without pock-marks anyway and carried mouthwash in his car. The 70 lbs difference was the real kicker. The police were so eager to make it look like they caught the guy, they were willing to mislead us.&nbsp; Further suspicions arose when St. Joseph Police Commander Jim Connors said <a href="http://www.newspressnow.com/localnews/25726650/detail.html">he didn't believe Jackson committed the recent Waldo rapes</a>. Now, six months later, no charges have been brought in the Waldo rapes. The victims have not identified Jackson as their rapists. No DNA evidence has been made public. Nothing.&nbsp; The rapes remain unsolved and as near as we can tell, uninvestigated since Jackson's arrest.<br /><br />I no longer hold out hope that the police are even going to bother looking for the truth, just the story that is most convenient. I've been provided with too much evidence of their <a href="http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-story-dea-beating-road-rage-092110,0,7247010.story">self-serving corruption</a>.&nbsp; I decided to revisit this topic when my neighbor called the cops because a man was lunging at the women from our building, trying to gain access and the cops never showed.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/12/police-still-pretend-to-get-it-right.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-2321259916699722255Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:04:00 +00002010-12-20T20:04:18.929-06:00ArtworkComicsmoviesReviewsA Few Things&nbsp;I finally decided to add some content to my website <a href="http://www.onehitkill.com/">www.Onehitkill.com</a>. &nbsp;It was originally going to be Something more ambitious, but I don't have the time. &nbsp;Instead, it will have links to all of my other <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/multimodalstorytelling/">projects</a>, <a href="http://kcbbb.blogspot.com/">blogs</a>, <a href="http://deviator77.deviantart.com/">artwork</a>, <a href="http://onehitkill.thecomicseries.com/">comics</a>, <a href="http://contributor.yahoo.com/user/195433/aaron_reese.html">reviews</a>&nbsp;and <a href="http://scriptfiction.blogspot.com/">stories</a>, including this blog.&nbsp;&nbsp;Right now it has only a few links. &nbsp;Even though there's enough content to keep most people entertained for quite awhile, I hope to improve on the selection as time goes on. &nbsp;I have a comic project that is slow to get off the ground, a novel that I will probably self-publish (I don't want to jump through a bunch of hoops) and put online, some short stories to upload, several art projects-including some contests that I may enter, movie and video game reviews and maybe comic book reviews. &nbsp;I've been trudging through Marvel's online archive lately. I totally recommend subscribing to their online digital comics too. It's well worth $60 a year. &nbsp;I also just caught up on theWalking Dead. I was a year behind. I'm surprised that it's still so good. &nbsp;More to come.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/12/few-things.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-5934324128417431385Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:26:00 +00002010-11-10T16:26:35.697-06:00Grand Theft AutoGrand Theft Auto 5Grand Theft Auto VGTARockstarDear Rockstar Games, Please Don't Make GTA5I was admiring your new project, <i>La Noire</i>, when I saw a surprising number of comments whining about you not announcing Grand Theft Auto 5.&nbsp; Considering the upcoming <i>La Noire</i> and this year's <i>Red Dead Redemption</i> both have aspects of the GTA franchise built in, I'm not sure I see a point in another entry. After your pioneering efforts in the genre with <i>GTA III, Vice City and GTA IV</i>, is there really anything else we need to say about low-life crooks moving their way up the criminal command chain?&nbsp; Even if some of us gamers enjoy having a grand theft fix, there are plenty of other competent knock offs of the GTA franchise, including<i> Mafia, Driver 2</i> and <i>Saint's Row</i>.&nbsp; There have even been improvements and fun tweaks with such games as <i>Crackdown, Mercenaries 2</i>, and <i>Just Cause 2</i>.<br /><br />Your company redefined the driving game genre with radio stations, non-linear missions and sandbox cities. You've created the best third-person shooter of all time, <i>Max Payne</i>. You brought us<i> Earthworm Jim 64</i> and made fake table tennis <i>fun</i>. You have proven time and time again that you are one of the forerunners in gaming production, ahead of the curve and improving on nearly every genre. With all this in mind, I beseech you, use your talents elsewhere. Why not jump over to the stagnating first-person shooter and inject some life into it or add some enjoyment to RPG stories instead of relying on the mind-numb self-plagiarism running rampant through Square-Enix? We have enough third person, sandbox driving games. Seriously, do not make GTA5.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/11/dear-rockstar-games-please-dont-make.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-7380638292813929220Mon, 01 Nov 2010 04:45:00 +00002010-11-01T00:20:41.124-05:00Abuse of PowerExecutive OrdersPresidencyUnited StatesOur President, The KingOnce upon a time the American people didn't want an all powerful ruler. Our system of government was constructed to reduce the chances of it happening, with the inclusion of just enough elasticity as to avoid entirely neutering the President of his usefulness. That elasticity has been stretched far beyond the original vision of the Constitutional Framers. After years of slow expansion, Presidents hold powerful sway over the Legislature and can sign whims into law with executive orders. They have control of an extensive&nbsp;bureaucracy whose agencies create rules to be followed as law. Appointments to offices boil down to the President's preference of political party; merit is secondary. This has happened for a few reasons. First, of course, is because our Presidents have slowly usurped power from the other branches of government. &nbsp;Secondly, we like the idea of a ruler, a figurehead and lightning rod, to affix our insecurities and blame, to pass as much responsibility onto as possible. We downright demand Presidential intervention in the most banal arenas. The President is having conferences on High School Football injuries and is forced to respond to accusation about smoking cigarettes. The President is expected to weigh in on every subject.<br /><br />I mentioned in an <a href="http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/02/two-headed-beast.html">earlier blog</a> &nbsp;how the president has extensive influence over congress. Because the President is the party leader, all members of congress in his party back his initiatives, proposed laws, programs, orders and policies, essentially making the leader of the Executive the most powerful influence in the legislature. This party influence extends to the governors and legislatures of the states. Presidential power is top-down policy all the way to county level. This wasn't an unforeseen development. Before George Washington's death, nearly every political leader voiced concern about the dangers of letting factions (parties) get a foothold of power in the government. Political Parties could push their agendas above the will of the people and infiltrate various branches of government, creating an infrastructure that would override the impartial operation of federal branches. Parties could create laws that favored themselves and then enforce them. Alexander Hamilton spoke about the dangers Factions posed in Federalist #9. James Madison suggested how to guard against them in Federalist #10. George Washington warned against them in his Farewell Address. &nbsp;Within 20 years, the Republican-Democrat party seized control of the presidency and the legislature and their dominance wasn't seriously threatened until the 1850s, despite some losses along the way.<br /><br />Many of the concerns about separation of power and Presidential abuse of power were voiced in anti-federalist essays by New York governor George Clinton, Virginia Revolutionaries Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, and other prominent founders. To allay these concerns Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, with an assist from John Jay, published 85 essays explaining the benefits of the proposed Constitution. These essays, now collected in one volume called <i>The Federalist</i>, stated arguments in direct refutation of the anti-federalist papers. Over the centuries many of the arguments laid out in <i>The Federalist</i>&nbsp;have been ignored.&nbsp;In addition to the loss of separation of power in the federal government, as explained above, the President can now wage war, probably the most significant fear voiced by anti-federalists and carefully guarded against by the Constitutional Framers. Obviously, all attempts to thwart this presidential abuse of power have failed.<br /><br />Delegates to the Constitutional Convention made every effort to reasonably limit presidential war powers, allowing him to use his designation of Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces only when he was "called into actual service of the Union," as Hamilton said in Federalist #69. He goes on to state, "while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." The power to wage war was not only excluded, it was and still IS forbidden under the current Constitution. To invade another country is supposed to be left solely up to Congress. Swift action without the consent of Congress by the Commander in Chief was only for the purpose of repelling invaders,&nbsp;suppressing&nbsp;rebellions and Indian attacks, securing the border against the Spanish, and guarding trade routes. &nbsp;Over the next century, it understandably extended to covert military operations and military escorts. For a President to send hundreds of thousands of troops into foreign lands without the consent of Congress was not part of the plan. It was the exact thing the founders despised about the power of kings. Kings could start wars the people didn't want and then force the people to pay for them. You may think I'm making reference to the current Iraq war, and its certainly an example, but I'm more aggravated with all the times in the past that people supported the actions of the president when he expanded his powers to the point where he <i>could</i>&nbsp;do something like invade Iraq. This power didn't come from conservatives. The ability to wage war came mostly from liberals who wished to extend presidential power without considering who might inherit the throne.<br /><br />In a few instances the American people attempted to limit the expansion of presidential power, but the efforts largely failed. For example, a few years after the death of Franklin Roosevelt, the United States ratified the 22nd amendment, which created term limits for the Presidency. Roosevelt was elected president four times and died while barely into his fourth term. For twelve years he set up a vast support structure throughout the government and even tried to further secure his authority by pushing through new laws that would allow him to appoint even more people. &nbsp;The amount of power he wrangled out of the position caused opponents to call him "<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=LEoEAAAAMBAJ&amp;pg=PA105&amp;lpg=PA105&amp;dq=%22king+franklin%22+roosevelt&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=N8FQXybp4l&amp;sig=NgbHXWvYXCosWeWjWjtsAgnvVDs&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=eEHOTP2eOYu-sQPns_CLDg&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CBcQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&amp;q=%22king%20franklin%22%20rooseveltking&amp;f=false">King Frank</a>." &nbsp;Due to the fear of the wrong person getting into the same position, the U.S. decided that Presidents should only be allowed two terms. To limit the tenure of office was not a new sentiment. &nbsp;New York Governor George Clinton stated in one of his anti-federalist papers in 1787 channeling Montesquieu, "the greatness of the power must be compensated by the brevity of the duration" and "the deposit of vast trusts in the hands of a single magistrate enables him in their exercises to create a numerous train of dependents." Limiting terms turned out to not matter much because a president of the same political party as his predecessor is very much like having the same President. They can continue to build up their bases of party support in the federal government, appointing people, sometimes for life, and their agenda may be carried out even if they leave office or die.<br /><br />The epitome of presidential power comes from "executive orders." They have the "force of law" and are now frequently used as laws over the American people. Executive orders were intended for very few uses. &nbsp;War, of course, would require swift policy orders from the president that should not be obstructed. &nbsp;Policies for martial law in occupied territories could fall under the jurisdiction of executive orders. Mostly, executive orders were for administrative purposes only. In the last hundred years or so, executive orders are becoming more like Royal Decrees; the President signs it and it is a law. Presidents have expanded this power at such an exceptional rate they can now dictate our <a href="http://www.usgoldcoins.com/information/articles/_facsimile_of_executive_order_april_5_1933.html">personal management of valuables</a>, prevent us from&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_steel_strike">striking against employers</a> (just about the only thing that has been challenged in the courts), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066">imprison citizens without trial</a> based on ancestry, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9835">persecute political undesirables</a>, unconstitutionally distribute<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Community_Initiatives">&nbsp;tax dollars to support churches</a>&nbsp;(some safeguards have been attempted and continue to fail), and <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13435">impede scientific research</a>&nbsp;without the consent of the people. (Anyone waiting for me to attack President Obama for his abuse of executive orders, don't hold your breath. He has exerted a nearly unparalleled influence over congress but, as near as I can tell, hasn't abused executive orders. Then again, he hasn't needed to.)<br /><br />Where does this leave us? &nbsp;Basically under the rule of the Founders' definition of a King. I think that many people are not only tolerant of this development, but prefer it. Maybe because we haven't had to fight very hard for the freedoms we enjoy. I think it's dangerous and if we continue down this path, the current incarnation of federal government could become the greatest enemy to freedom we have ever faced. &nbsp;Many times, we are afraid to point out abuses of power because it benefits us short term. I don't think we can let that stand. &nbsp;We need to keep pointing out abuses of power, no matter where they come from. &nbsp;We have already let it slip a long way and are facing the consequences of our apathy. We are <i>finally&nbsp;</i>becoming aware that Presidential power can&nbsp;realistically&nbsp;topple our economy and take away our freedoms. It's not as simple as voting a power hungry President out of office. During elections, we are forced to choose between two candidates that want to expand that power. We may eventually be able to turn it around. We can start with the abolition of special benefits to Republicans and Democrats. It would be a great benefit to the people's voice. &nbsp;Placing more power in the individual states would also help reduce expansion and abuse of federal power. &nbsp;I don't think increasing state power is ideal, but it's better than life under a King.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/10/our-president-king.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-2748376653196633087Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:04:00 +00002010-10-12T13:04:29.558-05:00abortionpartial-birthRights of the Living and the UnlivingAbortion is a sticky topic. &nbsp;Major groups&nbsp;opposing abortion consider fetuses alive from the moment of conception. &nbsp;To them, abortion at any stage of pregnancy is tantamount to murder.&nbsp; Those in favor of abortion are probably more numerous because of the varying stages of abortion they individually accept. &nbsp;Many of the pro-abortion (renaming themselves the family friendly "pro-choice") don't believe this is a political issue. &nbsp; They believe it is a personal choice. &nbsp; However, determining whether something qualifies as murder is certainly a legal and political issue.<br /><br />Bringing the argument to a different &nbsp;issue reveals some of our collective ethics about protecting life. &nbsp;We have obligations to lives that aren't human.&nbsp; Most people agree that being cruel to animals is wrong.&nbsp; In fact, torturing and killing them is illegal in most states.&nbsp; Even though it is not "murder" to kill an animal, it's &nbsp;punishable. &nbsp; Even if many of us aren't willing to claim abortion is "murder," we can at least admit that it is possible under our current legal system to make ending a non-human life illegal.<br /><br />Compromise is key to the longevity of the United States and vital to avoiding <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523581,00.html">violence</a>. &nbsp;Pro-choicers &nbsp;need to appreciate that compromising views on murder is difficult for the anti-abortionists (renaming themselves the family friendly "pro-life"). First of all, we need a <i>legal</i> definition of life. This will not be the same as the biological definition, because the biological definition requires an entity to be self-sustaining.&nbsp; I find this a tricky definition to begin with, because kids aren't self-sustaining until they're able to walk around and scrounge for food.&nbsp; I know, I know; that's not <i>exactly&nbsp;</i>what "self-sustaining" really means.&nbsp; It means something that is capable of self-sustenance without additional biological support.&nbsp; In that sense, some people believe that fetuses don't meet the definition.&nbsp; I would disagree.&nbsp; Some babies are <i>capable</i> of sustaining life in as little as 22 weeks of pregnancy.&nbsp; I would say an abortion after that point, called "partial-birth" abortion, is undisputedly wrong, whether or not the baby meets the standard definition of "alive."<br /><br />We should all agree that terminating a pregnancy after 22-24 weeks is despicable (unless the mother's life is endangered). In the United States, we can keep a baby alive after it has been prematurely born at 22 weeks. &nbsp;Most die, but it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby, a functioning human. &nbsp;To perform an abortion this late into the pregnancy, a doctor must perform a "partial-birth abortion." &nbsp;It is basically a technical term to escape the questions of murder. &nbsp;They don't pull the fetus all the way out of the womb. &nbsp;They pull everything out except for the head and neck. &nbsp;They reach with scissor-snips and sever the baby's spine directly under the brain stem. &nbsp;This process kills a human that&nbsp;conceivably&nbsp;could survive with aid. &nbsp;After 26 weeks, I would consider it first degree murder and the&nbsp;perpetrators should be considered for life&nbsp;imprisonment. Yes, even if the mother has been raped. It's <a href="http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm">disgusting</a>.<br /><br />Other people have different views on <i>when</i>&nbsp;an abortion is ok to perform. &nbsp;Fundamentalist Christians obviously believe that at the moment of conception indicates a soul is placed within the womb. &nbsp;This always struck me as odd because they have no way of knowing. &nbsp;They frequently state they cannot know Gods will and they chalk up tragedy as "everything happens for a reason" or "God works in mysterious ways"--other than a few exceptions, it seems. &nbsp; With issues such as abortion, they have no problem reading God's mind. They're just guessing the intentions of their God, who hasn't said anything to them in about 2000 years. &nbsp;I just ignore them. &nbsp;At the moment of conception, a sperm and an egg are just biological materials that have clashed. They are items that have no life force. &nbsp;In fact, nothing even resembling the form of a baby is present until about two months, and then in form only. &nbsp;Based on what I've read, I can't consider a mass of tissue&nbsp;comparable&nbsp;to a "baby." &nbsp;I don't consider a fetus to be anything other than biological material for the first trimester. &nbsp;After twelve weeks, I don't think we should allow abortion. &nbsp;But this is all debated.<br /><br />It's an issue that needs to be decided by courts and legislatures. &nbsp;I think we should start with some common ground and prohibit partial-birth abortion. &nbsp;We must also fervently ignore religious arguments. &nbsp;They are based on nothing more than feelings and hunches. &nbsp;They have no idea what their god's will is, which has no place in our laws anyway, so we must ignore their opinions. &nbsp;Laws based on religious views are unconstitutional. If we research, we may be able to determine up to what point it is acceptable to terminate.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/10/rights-of-living-and-unliving.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-9090729701584136924Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:58:00 +00002010-09-27T19:08:40.659-05:00New Safety Procedures for Oil RigsWith today's <a href="http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&amp;contentId=7064893">release of BP's explanation</a> for the oil rig disaster, a lot of finger pointing is going on. &nbsp;This isn't a shock by any stretch of the imagination. We all expected as much. BP says the tragedy was the result of many mistakes by several companies. Of course, they blame themselves the least. &nbsp;This actually isn't the reason I'm posting. I'm not outraged by BP's press release. I expected them to say something along those lines.<br /><br />&nbsp;I'm more interested in the new safety procedures that will come from the investigations on whose fault the&nbsp;disaster&nbsp;was. President Obama has his own commission that will investigate the causes of the explosion, fire and pollution. The commission will then recommend safety products that will prevent this from ever happening again. &nbsp;This got me thinking about what the new procedures would be. &nbsp;The first thing to come to my mind was nuclear reactors. They have safety protocols on top of safety protocols. &nbsp;They have a button that anyone in the facility can anonymously press at anytime they feel that proper procedures aren't being followed. The EPA then shows up lickety-split<br /><br />&nbsp;After all, with all of the problems that oil rigs have, and the fact that they can incinerate 11 people in an instant goes to show how much they need something like that. I'm pretty sure that if I could be vaporized at my job, I would demand a way to tattle to a government agency so they could swoop in and save my life.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/09/new-safely-procedures-for-oil-rigs.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-6772649018563605591Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:59:00 +00002010-12-10T00:09:57.392-06:00americanegoMore American HubrisThere's really no way around it at this point. Anyone who doesn't believe in biological evolution is stupid. We've all had plenty of time to read up on the evidence, and really, only a cursory investigation is required to determine the truth of evolutionary theory. Despite its acceptance throughout the scientific community, it is still widely rejected in the United States. But it is so obviously true, proven beyond the point of contention, that even disagreeing with it proves stupidity, or at the least, proves an unreasonable desire to be willfully delusional. In Europe there is no grand debate over the legitimacy of something that has been proven. So why here, in America?<br /><br />I posted a blog about the <a href="http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/02/american-ego.html">American Ego</a> when speaking about philanthropy. Other countries are quick to point out our hubris at any convenience. There is no point in denying our ego. We have one. I'm guilty of showing too much pride from time to time. I still maintain that our egos have nothing on the French, but we do have an ingrained superiority complex. I first noticed it as a real problem when Oxford put out their yearly study on quality of life around the world. America was listed first above England for the last 100 years. In 2008, for the first time in a century, England topped America after our financial meltdown. Then, with ferocious rapidity, Americans simultaneously decried the study as farcical, nonsense, fraudulent, inaccurate and bullshit, a study that we were perfectly content believing for more than a century...as long as we were winning. For the first time I considered Americans as petty whiners. Bad sports. Jerks.<br /><br />Americans seem incapable of humility in the face of superiority. Sometimes this comes through in the most delightful ways as we truly do have contempt for the odds. Sometimes carelessly, but with bravado. You can see how that could be good or bad. <br /><br />This superiority that is ingrained in us does not just apply to nationality. It occurs in political parties, as with the Democrats in the 2000 Presidential election. Democrats knew how the election worked, but never threw a hissy fit until their guy lost the election while winning the popular vote. All of the sudden, Bush "stole" the election. Which is not true.<br /><br />Apparently it applies to species as well. Americans are incapable of being brought down to an animal level. We're not monkeys! so It must be a flawed theory, Americans cry.&nbsp; On the whole, we cannot bring ourselves to believe that we were not always BADASSES at the top of the food chain.&nbsp; Or moreover, that at some point, the world existed perfectly well without us.<br /><br />That's my theory anyway, and unlike the theory of evolution, you can disagree with it without being a total moron.<br /><br />- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhonehttp://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/09/more-amerian-hubris.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-5412846306362152824Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:53:00 +00002010-07-13T09:53:44.808-05:00comic booksmoviesnovelsstorytellingvideo gamesDiversity in Narrative MediaI haven't posted a blog in a bit because, (1) I've been drawing and (2) I've been working on <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/multimodalstorytelling/">THIS</a>.&nbsp; It's a website dedicated to exploring the differences between storytelling media such as video games, movies, books and comic books.&nbsp; I plan on adding some more to it later on.&nbsp; I will surely focus on the ever-developing Video Game.&nbsp; There is a lot of room for exploration on how video games tell stories, how the player affects the story, how the story can evolve due to interactivity.&nbsp; The storytelling language of video games has not been extensively studied and I look forward to delving into it further.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/07/diversity-in-narrative-media.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-7271525383300675088Tue, 06 Jul 2010 21:06:00 +00002010-07-06T16:19:52.889-05:00americaillegal immigrantsimmigrationmexicoAntipathy for IllegalsI never had a problem with illegal immigrants until 2006.&nbsp; I understood anyone who wanted to come to America.&nbsp; We have lots of money here.&nbsp; Our crap jobs pay more than any other country's crap jobs.&nbsp; People can come here and support their entire families with two minimum wage jobs.<br /><br />Then came the rallies. In April of 2006, illegal immigrants from all over the country <i>demanded </i>to have the same rights as me.&nbsp; I immediately wanted to deport all the ungrateful bastards.&nbsp; I wanted to build a wall across the Mexican border and tell the whole Latin-American region to go to hell.&nbsp; Then I thought about some of the laws I skirt because they are stupid.&nbsp; A few laws have too much red tape, unnecessary policies, confusing wording and obfuscation to be properly obeyed (Tax laws came to mind.&nbsp; Some tax evaders have my sympathies.&nbsp; The government shouldn't have the power to tax the same dollar from a rich person six or seven times and then tax them after they die.&nbsp; It's absurd).&nbsp; I thought that maybe the immigration test might have the same absurdity to it. Maybe there was a reason so many immigrants avoided it.&nbsp; I looked it up. I read the material.&nbsp; I took the test.&nbsp; It's fine!&nbsp; The test aims to ensure immigrants know the responsibilities of being American and that they know the language of the law, English.&nbsp; It's the language that our public documents, laws, and street signs are written in.&nbsp; It's fair that people who immigrate here should have a working knowledge of the language.&nbsp; For the Americans who are illiterate, well, it was their good fortune and privilege to be born here.<br /><br />Hundreds of thousands of people file for citizenship every year and 92% of applicants pass the citizenship test.&nbsp; It's a fair test with fair requirements, something rare in the federal government.&nbsp; It is unfair to those people who waited their turn, took the time to learn what it means to be a citizen of the United States, learned the language, paid a fee, passed the test and became Americans.&nbsp; Illegal immigration is unfair to the people who just want to work here, as well.&nbsp; They get a work visa, pay taxes, and in return, they are rewarded with the same rights that I have: freedom of speech, religion, attorney, and the pursuit of happiness.&nbsp; On the whole, Americans welcome legal immigrants. We like them.&nbsp; My Egyptian friend got his citizenship a few years ago and just recently saved enough money to bring his family here.&nbsp; I couldn't be happier for him.&nbsp; It's great to live here and I know what it will mean for them.<br /><br />Illegals, on the other hand, skip all the proper steps to become citizens.&nbsp; They don't pay the taxes that I do and they expect the same rights that I have.&nbsp; They don't want to pledge allegiance to the United States, they just want our benefits.&nbsp; After realizing that going through the proper steps of becoming a citizen isn't unfair, every bit of empathy I had for illegals disappeared.&nbsp; What they are doing is tantamount to cutting in line at the bakery and demanding the fresh donuts, which everyone knows is just fucking rude.&nbsp; Dick move, illegals.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/07/antipathy-for-illegals.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-3648207451573715657Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:15:00 +00002010-06-21T08:47:52.980-05:00big oilcapitalismenergyoil spillThe Glorious Oil SpillA hardcore capitalist tried to convince me of the power the free market has on the oil industry.&nbsp; When we had this conversation, there were only gasoline powered vehicles.&nbsp; Electric cars were an impractical novelty.&nbsp; Car companies competed with each other. Oil companies competed with each other. Tire companies, engine manufacturers, and vehicle design teams all competed against their respective opposition. However, there was no viable alternative vehicle to a gasoline powered car. Trains, subways and planes take people to <i>approximate </i>locations near where we want to go.&nbsp; Gasoline powered cars were the only thing that got us to our final destination and their dominance was unopposed. Oil and car companies, with big money, power and expensive lobbyists made sure that innovations opposing their dominance were crushed. This didn't seem very "free market" to me.<br /><br />I told the capitalist this.&nbsp; He just said that if people wanted alternatives, they would stop buying gasoline. Considering the circumstances, the public had no choice but to buy gas unless they couldn't afford it.&nbsp; We were in the snare of an international conspiracy, forced to buy something we didn't particularly want.&nbsp; We weren't just <i>convinced</i> it was a good idea by brilliant marketing; we were prevented from buying anything that would compete against it. <br /><br />I began to root for the price of oil to rise nearly high enough to topple our economy, but didn't see how it could be achieved.&nbsp; Enter China.&nbsp; They began buying mass amounts of oil from the Middle East, thus increasing demand and driving up the price. Americans were outraged at gas prices that rose well above $3.50 and sometimes $4.00. We protested, carpooled, took trains and subways, rode bikes and even walked to work.&nbsp; The big, bad and completely unnecessary 4x4 Hemis were no longer selling well.&nbsp; Gas guzzlers stayed on car lots for months and years. Car companies faced serious trouble.<br /><br />We saw a change.&nbsp; Manufacturers mass-produced Smartcars. Hybrids were ushered to the mainstream.&nbsp; Marketers began focusing on gas-mileage. Car dealers had limited time promotions for "free gas." Game shows started awarding "free gas for a year." Gas consumption took precedence and at long last, we were provided <i>some</i> alternative.&nbsp; It wasn't enough. The United States began drilling within its borders again and the gas prices fell.&nbsp; The collapse of the house market caused people to pay attention to gas mileage, but not as fervently as they did before. Due to the recession, people stopped buying cars altogether.&nbsp; I was elated.&nbsp; If the current car companies that shoved gas-guzzlers down our throats for the last 40 years went out of business, more responsible businesses would take their places.&nbsp; Then we bailed them out.&nbsp; The recession lifted and Dodge is still slapping Hemis into their ridiculous road monsters.&nbsp; They have a few more restrictions now, after accepting government money, but they are still the same guys that had us under their thumb for decades.<br /><br />I have no problem with cars running on gasoline.&nbsp; I have a problem with ALL cars running on gasoline.&nbsp; Which is what the oil companies have coerced/convinced car companies into providing.&nbsp; Americans became more skeptical of oil companies when President Bush was repeatedly attacked for his "shady" ties to the oil industry.&nbsp; It was in the news daily.&nbsp; It was <i>still</i> not enough to make the American public hate, truly hate, the oil industry.&nbsp; With high, fluctuating gasoline prices, an already notorious reputation, a media-induced association with war and the most hated president of all time, all it should take to unburden ourselves of their evil presence is a slight nudge, a negative event caused by an oil company, perhaps.&nbsp; Something awful and close to home.&nbsp; Something that devastates American businesses, damages the environment, and raises the cost of many products across the nation.<br /><br />BP, you glorious bastards, thanks for the most tremendous fuck up in oil industry history.&nbsp; Not only has your rig's explosion stalled the southern fishing industry, killed universally-adored dolphins and cute animals on international television, polluted Louisiana marshes, destroyed western Floridian tourism, it also killed eleven blue collar Americans. You united Americans in common hatred not seen since 9/11.<br /><br />The President has finally chosen to manipulate a situation in a way I completely endorse.&nbsp; He is using the oil rig explosion to cast a shadow of menace upon the entire oil industry. He's calling for a new clean energy policy that could end U.S. dependence on fossil fuels, which is exactly what we need.<br /><br />What will be the lasting effect of the oil spill in the coast? Probably not too much.&nbsp; In WWII, from late 1942 to early 1944, more than 60 oil tankers were torpedoed off the United States East Coast leaking millions of gallons of oil into the sea with each torpedo strike. For a time, New York State's tide was black with oil.&nbsp; If this current oil catastrophe leaks steadily for the next 400 days, it have about the same ecological effect as the torpedoed tankers. In other words, massive amounts of oil in the ocean is not a unique event in history, but I completely agree with the politicians that are painting it so.<br /><br />To me, the tragedy came with the explosion on the oil rig.&nbsp; We lost 11 non-combatant human beings. Everything after that could be considered a lucky break.&nbsp; If we manage to stop the leak in the next few months, recover most of the oil and clean up most of the damage all by billing BP, we will still have short term problems to keep us busy. That being said, if that is all it costs for ending our dependence on the Middle East, pulling out our troops without detrimental side effects, and developing more efficient alternative energy, we will make out like bandits.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/06/glorious-oil-spill.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-2462649438814368575Sat, 15 May 2010 01:48:00 +00002010-12-10T00:05:26.774-06:00Kansas CityKCPDPoliceWaldo RapistTo Protect and Serve IllusionsSince I graduated high school, I have slowly become disenchanted with the police "good guy" image that my parents instilled in me.&nbsp; In the last year, their actions have been so irresponsible that they've left me without any remaining confidence in them.&nbsp; I now loathe them.&nbsp; The final straw came on heels of the most recent arrest of a "Person of Interest" in the recent Waldo Rape cases, which is an example of police ineptitude and abuse, but not in the way you might think.<br /><br />In my home town of Lee's Summit,&nbsp; a suburb of Kansas City, I was always aware that the police were more interested in harassing teenagers and giving tickets than they were of catching criminals and thieves.&nbsp; Late at night however, when I was a night stock manager at Hy-Vee, the police would stop in from time to time and were mostly helpful.&nbsp; I occasionally saw true compassion and a willingness to help.<br /><br />In 2004, I landed a job that exposed me to the everyday operations of the Kansas City police.&nbsp; I was shocked to see a general lack of interest in helping people.&nbsp; These were jaded cops, annoyed with the day-to-day barrage of stupid people.&nbsp; They would help people if they had to, but mostly avoided paperwork.&nbsp; By 2006, I left to attend college in Columbia, MO and promptly forgot about the KCPD.<br /><br />I returned to the same job after I graduated in 2008 and was immediately reminded of the Police's lackluster interest in protecting and serving.&nbsp; For a time, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. Assuming that they would do their job, if a little disgruntled about it.&nbsp; A lady called me and told me that a business had stolen her ski-boat.&nbsp; This lady took the boat to a repair shop to have the motor fixed.&nbsp; The company fixed the motor and then put the boat up for sale.&nbsp; I was shocked.&nbsp; I had never heard of such a thing.&nbsp; I told her to go to the police and file a report.&nbsp; She said ok.&nbsp; I received a call from her about two hours later.&nbsp; She said that the police refused to take the report, claiming that it was a civil matter.<br /><br />Earlier this year, a woman called a check-cashing establishment to ask their hours.&nbsp; She was unaware that her call had been routed to the St. Louis headquarters location of the business.&nbsp; They said they would be open at 8:00 AM.&nbsp; The lady showed up at the check-cashing business at just past 8:00 and found the doors locked.&nbsp; Thinking that she had just spoken with someone that was inside, she knocked on the door and tried the handle again.&nbsp; She cupped her hands over her eyes and looked in through the glass.&nbsp; When she leaned back from the door, she found that a man behind her was pointing a gun at her.&nbsp; He said, "Get the fuck back."&nbsp; She raised her hands and backed up, thinking she was being robbed.&nbsp; The man unlocked the door, walked into the check-cashing business and locked the door behind him, pointing the gun at her the whole time.&nbsp; The woman was severely rattled and drove straight to the police.&nbsp; The police told her they do not handle problems with businesses.&nbsp; She called me and explained what had happened.&nbsp; I verified with my friend who works for the St. Louis Police Department that the police take reports on the flourishing of a firearm.&nbsp; They do.&nbsp; I urged her to talk to the police again and at least file a report, whether they wanted her to or not.&nbsp; She called me back later and informed that the police were adamant in their decision not to do anything.<br /><br />An elderly man took his antique music box to a clock repair shop.&nbsp; The clock was an anniversary present that his deceased wife gave him 60 years before. The clock repair shop stole the music box and tried to sell it. The store repeatedly told the elderly man that the clock was irreparable and they threw it out.&nbsp; The elderly man kept his receipts and went to the police.&nbsp; They said that they do not handle business matters.&nbsp; I personally intervened to try to get the music box back.&nbsp; Miraculously, the music box was found and returned.&nbsp; The police never took a report.<br /><br />I have investigated criminals, compiled reports and offered them to the Kansas City Police Fraud Department.&nbsp; They have <i>never</i> called me back.&nbsp; Some of the people I offered up are still ripping people off.<br /><br />The above examples only laid the 'seeds' of doubt.&nbsp; I regularly hear similar stories.&nbsp; These types of stories are disheartening, but there's a part of me that held back from full-force condemnation. I know that there are bigger issues than theft.&nbsp; Theft is usually isolated and though deplorable, isn't threatening public safety.&nbsp; I learned not to trust police, learned that calling them for fraud or theft is a waste of time.&nbsp; What really made me <i>hate</i> Kansas City cops resulted from the Waldo Rape case.<br /><br />The Kansas City police identified a man named Bernard Jackson as a "person of interest" in the recent rapes that have sent fear into the women in the Waldo area of Kansas city.&nbsp; Jackson is a registered sex offender who was released from prison after serving more than 20 years for a rape in the 1980s.&nbsp; He was released in 2008, prior to five rapes in the Waldo (from Sept 2009-Feb 2010).&nbsp; He matched the psych profile of the rapist and was justly investigated.&nbsp; During the investigation and through DNA evidence, he was linked to four Waldo rapes in the 1980s.&nbsp; He was followed for a week before the police lost him.<br /><br />Jackson was dating a woman and helping to support her and her children at the time of this investigation.&nbsp; After they lost him, and a warrant for his arrest was secured, they also searched his girlfriend's house in hopes of finding him or other evidence.&nbsp; They detained the woman around noon on May 5, 2010 at her place of work and took her to the police station where they proceeded to interrogate her.&nbsp; She was aware that Jackson had a past that involved incarceration, but she didn't know the details.&nbsp; She explained to the police over and over.&nbsp; She believed what the police told her and didn't attempt to defend him.&nbsp; It didn't matter.&nbsp; The police interrogated her about his whereabouts and even threatened to take her children away from her.&nbsp; She cooperated as best she could, but she truly didn't know his whereabouts.&nbsp; About four hours into her interrogation, the police apprehended Jackson after a short foot chase.<br /><br />By this time, Jackson's girlfriend's children arrived home to find squad cars surrounding it.&nbsp; One of the children had her backpack searched and was then let go.&nbsp; The police did not tell the children what was going on, did not take them to a police station, and did not tell them that their mother was being detained, or even that she was alive and safe.&nbsp; The kids arrived home, one by one, and were ignored. They took shelter at a neighbor's house and frantically tried to contact their mother, who had her cell phone confiscated.&nbsp; They would learn nothing of their mother's whereabouts until she was released at 4:00AM the next morning, 16 hours after she had been taken from her job.<br /><br />All this time, Jackson's girlfriend was pleading with the police to contact her children and make arrangements for their well-being.&nbsp; Her requests were ignored and so were her children.&nbsp; They managed to get a hold of their eldest sister who could take them in until they found out what was going on.&nbsp; Jackson's girlfriend arrived home to find many of her things destroyed, including her stove.&nbsp; She will have to pay for damages out of pocket.&nbsp; Her children are now confused as to why the bad guy was nice to them and the good guys were not only mean, but destroyed their home and threatened their mother, who is already emotionally devastated.<br /><br />The police released a <a href="http://voices.kansascity.com/sites/voices.kansascity.com/files/images/rapist.preview.jpg">composite sketch</a> of the suspect earlier this year.&nbsp; The sketch, based on the victim descriptions of the rapist was of a clean shaven bald man with mid complexion, weighing about 250 lbs.&nbsp; &nbsp; The police called a <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/video/kansascity-kmbc-18211647/police-hold-press-conference-on-waldo-arrest-19604440">press conference</a> about their capture of Jackson.&nbsp; The full length press conference has been removed from the internet, or I would have linked it.&nbsp; At the conference Police Chief Corwin talked about the hard work they put in catching Jackson.&nbsp; They showed a map of the location of the current Waldo rapes. They displayed the composite sketch of the Waldo rapist adjacent to <a href="http://www.kcmugshots.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/bernard-jackson-240x300.jpg">Bernard Jackson's mugshot</a>.&nbsp; Chief Corwin announced that the police were charging Jackson with four rapes from the 1980s. He then refused to answer questions about the current investigation.&nbsp; Jackson committed, and will certainly be found guilty of, all the rapes from the 80s.&nbsp; He is even linked to <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/07/2735491/suspected-oak-park-rapist-had.html">several in California</a>.&nbsp; He will surely spend the rest of his life behind bars.&nbsp; But what about the current menace to society, the guy who has Waldo residents jumpy and afraid?<br /><br />It turns out that Jackson weighs about 180lbs, not 250lbs like the suspect.&nbsp; That discrepancy is very difficult to reconcile.&nbsp; As far as I know, the victims haven't come forward to identify Jackson and probably weren't even asked to.&nbsp; Despite DNA evidence from the scenes and with Jackson in custody, the police have not charged him with the current rapes.&nbsp; The police also forced Jackson to shave his beard before the mugshot, a <i>very</i> odd demand.&nbsp; Jackson has apparently had the beard for the last several years.&nbsp; In other words, he's not the right guy for the recent attacks. <br /><br />That means the police concocted a press conference to make it look like they caught the guy causing havoc in Waldo.&nbsp; They are leading residents into a false sense of security and leading the press to believe they caught the guy who will be charged any time now.&nbsp; I've asked myself why more than a few times.&nbsp; I've wondered if it is a tactic to keep the amount of tips down or to limit racial profiling.&nbsp; Maybe it's to lull the real Waldo rapist into letting down his guard.&nbsp; In the end, it doesn't matter; they are deliberately misleading us.&nbsp; And after careful consideration, I hate them for it.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/05/to-protect-and-serve-illusions.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-3936993950944779097Wed, 12 May 2010 20:55:00 +00002010-12-10T00:02:57.864-06:00Christianity in Science ClassI wouldn't normally redress a single religion, but other religions have not tenaciously battled to implant their faiths into a discipline that requires the exact opposite of faith.&nbsp; Scientific conclusions are based on research and evidence.&nbsp; Experiments are administered and results are published.&nbsp; If the outcomes of experiment after experiment support a theory, stacking evidence upon evidence in favor of the theory, then and only then is the theory eligible to be taught in science class.&nbsp; <br /><br />Allowing faith in science class sets precedent for kids to supplant mysticism and superstition for rational thought and evidence, two vital ingredients in the solid foundation of all scientific&nbsp;disciplines.&nbsp; Science teachers do not just fill in blanks with whatever religion conveniently gives explanations based on assumptions and a complete absence of research.&nbsp;&nbsp; What happens when two religions give equally logical explanations of the same event? What makes us choose one over the other?&nbsp; Faith? What if subscribers to various faiths were in a science classroom and being taught Christian Creation?&nbsp; That is not "teaching".&nbsp; It is indoctrination and it transforms the classroom into a mission.<br /><br />The argument is caused by fundamentalist Christians' assertions that the theory of biological evolution is false because the Bible already has a story for the creation of humans (as we currently are), and the theory of evolution is incompatible with it. Well, evolution happens. It's true and it's been proven again and again. It's the Fundamentalists' responsibility to reconcile their beliefs with the truth, not the other way around.<br /><br />In America, <a href="http://mindful-drivel.blogspot.com/2010/02/politics-normative-science.html">science and Christianity are estranged</a>.&nbsp; In 2005, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml">fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans did not believe in Evolution</a>.&nbsp; These people believe that God created humans in their current form, as written in Genesis, and they want to teach not only their own children this, but ours, yours, <a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3597/3503877277_2598204569.jpg">his</a>, <a href="http://www.jwmag.org/site/c.fhLOK0PGLsF/b.2439809/">hers</a>, and <a href="http://s4.hubimg.com/u/424787_f520.jpg">everyone else's</a> kids.&nbsp; Bill O'Reilly gave <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Ald5f_nao">pretty much the worst reason ever</a> for wanting schools to teach the Christian version of creation. He said that Christianity had answers that science couldn't provide, such as how the world began.&nbsp; Apparently, it doesn't matter <i>how</i> one arrives at the answers, just as long as the teacher has answers handy.&nbsp; Following that logic, we could allow teachers to make things up, as long as they have answers to questions.&nbsp; If science can't provide the answers then why would we bring something that is not science into science class?&nbsp; If science doesn't have the answers to a question, that is exactly what the science teacher should say.&nbsp; If the student wants answers that science cannot provide, then the student needs to search elsewhere.&nbsp; It belongs in a class where unproven speculations are welcomed...whatever class that might be.&nbsp; <br /><br /><a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html">In Europe, there's really no debate</a> about evolution.&nbsp; Nearly everyone accepts the truth of evolution, including Christians.&nbsp; In one of the most poetic statements committed to words, Cardinal Ratzinger says the following in his commentary on Genesis:<br /><blockquote>"We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities."</blockquote><br />Because Genesis is a Jewish text, I also consulted Jewish opinion on the matter.&nbsp; According to the <a href="http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100635">Rabbinical Council of America</a>, "Evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator or with the first 2 chapters of Genesis."&nbsp; So, really, why is there even a debate?&nbsp; Science teachers are teaching the SCIENCE behind whatever the "Divine Creator" may have created. They are not telling children not to believe in God.&nbsp; That doesn't belong in science class either. <br /><br />Some Christians issue arguments from more solid ground and only claim that we should teach Intelligent Design in science classes.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't really have anything against Intelligent Design.&nbsp; It can be defended just as easily as non-design, in my opinion.&nbsp; I can very effectively refute any argument that claims "Intelligent Design is false".&nbsp; God/Divine Creator has the most powerful trump cards imaginable: he is omniscient and omnipotent.&nbsp; With those two attributes, literally nothing is impossible, so defending him as the creator of the universe is not challenging.&nbsp; But, virtually all supporting evidence for Intelligent Design has been thoroughly researched and the results invariably suggests logical explanations concurrent with scientific theories. This, by no means, invalidates the concept of Intelligent Design, it just makes the reasons for teaching it superfluous.&nbsp; A grand designer may have set evolution into motion, but in order to debate the existence of a designer, no matter what stance is argued, we would have to speculate with no way of verifying our speculations.&nbsp; If a student asks if Intelligent Design is true, the correct answer is "maybe" or "I don't know." There's nothing else to say about it.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/05/christianity-in-science-class.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-3522550582990580806Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:07:00 +00002010-12-10T00:01:02.364-06:00democratgovernmentpartypoliticsrepublicantwo-party systemTwo Headed Beast: The American Two-Party SystemAmerica, according to Democrats and Republicans alike, is doomed. Other countries believe so too, but I suspect wishful thinking on their parts. Republicans believe that the Democrats are demolishing what makes our country great, removing individual rights in favor of government control that will drive us into financial ruin.&nbsp; Democrats believe the Republicans are keeping the U.S. in an archaic state of apathy and greed, perpetuating an already failed financial system that funnels money to the top at the expense of the working class.&nbsp; Ask card carriers from either major party for a prediction of American prosperity and they will try to convince you, with the utmost certainty, that the <i>other </i>party will ruin your life and <i>their</i> way is the only way to save the country.<br /><br />Both parties are correct and both are incorrect.&nbsp; Republicans and Democrats are certainly damaging the country and neither party is willing to explore non-partisan solutions.&nbsp; And here is the American public in the middle of an entrenched, self-perpetuating system, which forbids a viable third option, and instead we are forced to pick between two gnawing cancers.<br /><br />The two major parties have devolved into opposition parties, allowing no room for good ideas from the major opposing camp simply because they are the enemy.&nbsp; Enemies can't have good ideas, see, because they are the bad guys.&nbsp; There is an inherent distrust on both sides of anything the other party says because they despise each other.&nbsp; They would rather poke holes in an idea from the opposition, condemning it as a failed attempt to harm the public good, than to even <i>try</i> and improve it and recognize its merits.&nbsp; The two heads of the beast would rather annihilate each other than protect the public or acknowledge the damage their war is causing it.<br /><br />When voting to fill a government office, lest one of the candidates be the rare independent, we must choose between two preset ideologies, uniform among party members, that regulates a candidate's reasoning, restricting it from operating outside party lines.&nbsp; The individual candidate that has been elected to office, entrusted with the power to make consequential decisions, will, when beckoned, vote along party lines with Pavlovian expediency.&nbsp; When we vote for a candidate, whether for state representative, congressman or President, we are not voting for a man or woman that can get the job done, who can adapt to situations as they arise and solve problems, we are voting for a tool of the party, a bullhorn used to broadcast an ubiquitous political agenda.&nbsp; Candidates frequently have no opinion of their own. Opinions jeopardize candidates' positions within the party.&nbsp; They must vote with the party or risk losing their support.&nbsp; That is why you will see so many politicians <a href="http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/03/08/1851096/ashburn-says-hes-gay-defends-vote.html">voting against their own inclinations</a>.&nbsp; If an unforeseen danger pops into American view, the U.S. is incapable of proper and quick response because our representatives must filter their opinions through the party, making sure their proposed solutions do not conflict with party ideals*.&nbsp; If freed from party affiliated candidates, we would be freed from policies that have been passed through the biased filters of several party leaders, irrevocably binding those policies to the archaic or naive ideals that impair their ability to adapt to elastic and elusive issues.<br /><br />The average but loyal party subscriber, Joe Democrat or Joe Republican, doesn't help matters.&nbsp; The major political parties rely on our unflinching obedience and loyalty.&nbsp; Over sixty percent of the population gives exactly that to one party or another.&nbsp; Party subscribers tend to sanitize their candidates of any wrong-doing, exonerating or ignoring conspicuous errors in judgment, frequently forgiving them for blatantly lying to the public or straying from the political ideals their constituents expect them to champion.&nbsp; On the other hand, the opposition blindly focuses on innocuous indiscretions.<br /><br />No candidate is inexorably clean.&nbsp; I'm sure we can all agree that even the most revered of us are imperfect.&nbsp; For example, George Washington was a hesitant leader that frequently let things spiral out of control before confronting a situation.&nbsp; Thomas Jefferson struck personal low blows against his political rivals, likely slept with his slave(s), and condoned the reprehensible slaughter of innocents in the latter period of the 1789 French Revolution.&nbsp; Abraham Lincoln was probably Bi-polar, which dipped him into deep despair without a moment's notice, and suspended Habeas Corpus in the raucous Union states during the Civil War.&nbsp; Franklin Roosevelt authorized the concentrated imprisonment of Japanese Americans during WWII and bullied unconstitutional legislation through Congress, a branch of government he should have had no direct influence over. And these were the "Greats."<br /><br />None of us should expect or even <i>accept </i>that a candidate is flawless.&nbsp; A voter must weigh a candidate's flaws against his attributes or accept that the voter himself is but a mindless tool to be used in political scheming. Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt all deserve their esteemed position in American History, but one must consider their whole reputations, their bad decisions along with their good.&nbsp; Glossing over their mistakes denigrates the difficulty of their position and the efficacy of their tenures of office.&nbsp; In the majority of elections, we have both parties claiming perfect candidates.&nbsp; Without party affiliation, candidates would have to rely on their merits and individual worth and not their political propaganda machine. We should use our reason and education to select a candidate that best fits views arrived at with individual critical thinking, not views that have been thrust upon us by others.&nbsp; Unfortunately, this is nearly impossible in a two party system, because both candidates in any race are cookie cutter replicas of their party confederates.<br /><br />A side-effect of the two party system may be the most problematic to our government.&nbsp; The U.S. was built upon <i>separation of power</i> and <i>checks and balances</i>.&nbsp; Those two concepts are the first things we learn about government while in grade school.&nbsp; The Executive branch and the Legislative branch are separate in order to keep the president from forcing his agenda into law.&nbsp; The president is supposed to have nothing to do with the legislative branch.&nbsp; His domestic role is to protect the people and enforce the law.&nbsp; He is not supposed to have a role in a law's creation other than signing it. Thanks to the two-party system, the president becomes the leader of the party and forces his soldiers to back his play. They do, of course, because the President himself is a product of the party, endorsing his party's plans for the country. That's how he got the nomination in the first place. Men and women are not running the country; we are ruled by the checklist-agenda of the party in power.<br /><br />There doesn't seem to be much desire for reform, no matter how needed.&nbsp; Most people are unaware that other possibilities exist because of the stranglehold the Republicans and Democrats have on the American political process.&nbsp; We still have a two-party ballot, for one thing.&nbsp; We must 'write in' other options in most races.&nbsp; Funding laws also heavily favor the two parties.&nbsp; It's difficult for a third party to gain any ground without the <a href="http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#5">generous benefits given to Democrats and Republicans</a>.&nbsp; Because all other parties are at the mercy of the lawmakers who are 99% Democrat and Republican, we may never see any legislation favoring small parties.&nbsp; Indeed, we may never even be aware of reasonable smaller parties. The only way to gain favor for a third option is to create something akin to the 19th century Whig party, a hodgepodge of all the non-partisans wishing to oust the current powers.&nbsp; This too will create problems, but at least we could drive a wedge into the power of the great two.<br /><br />Sadly, all options outside the two-party system are unlikely, because it would face too much opposition.&nbsp; Somehow, along the way, these parties convinced us that, not only is the two-party system harmless, it's a <i>good </i>idea.&nbsp; That is, unless the opponent wins the election. Then it's dumb.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">--------------------------------------------------------</div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>* </b>On those rare occasions we see a Congressman vote against his party, it is not a crisis of conscience or a moral statement, it's just <a href="http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100311/NEWS01/3110343/Earmark-ban-targets-for-profit-companies">bribery</a>.&nbsp; Politicians refer to bribes as "contributions," in exchange for "earmarks," or "pork-barrel spending." Let me simplify: they're bribes. This practice is impossible to eradicate without passing some laws.&nbsp; Who passes laws? Congress.&nbsp; Who takes bribes? Click the following links for the answer. <a href="http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/17820164/detail.html">1</a>, <a href="http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/19/nelson-medicai/">2</a>, <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb82om_krauthammer-on-senator-mary-landrie_news">3</a>, <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/19/congress_bribery_probe_could_deepen/">4</a>, <a href="http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=4492323296">5</a>, <a href="http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6419.shtml">6</a>, <a href="http://www.congressproject.org/ethics/corbrowncom.html">7</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/fbi-whistleblower-hastert_b_277704.html">8</a>, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/28/cunningham/">9</a>, <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_officia.html">10</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080503195.html">11</a>. </span>http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/02/two-headed-beast.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8258428251468629637.post-4699188952093855096Sun, 14 Mar 2010 04:29:00 +00002010-03-13T22:29:15.644-06:00autismfree speechJenny McCarthy Gets Her Money's Worth From Free SpeechAt what point does a person take the freedom of speech too far?&nbsp; Most people cite the example of shouting "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded theater, which could cause extreme physical injuries including trampling deaths. Most of us recognize the prudence of safeguards against such actions. We accept certain limitations on speech when it comes to probable public endangerment. Other people cite the Presidential Death Threat as an example. We're not allowed to proclaim, "I will kill the President of the United States," unless we want the Secret Service kicking down our door.&nbsp; That too, most of us understand.&nbsp; But what about the murky areas between obvious extremes?&nbsp; What if endangerment is subtle and erosive rather than overt and explosive?<br /><br />At what point does someone incite a riot rather than passionately express her views to the public?&nbsp; At what point does condemnation of a nation's administration turn into aid and comfort to the enemy?&nbsp; When is art too obscene to display?&nbsp; The answers to these questions are constantly negotiated, decisions are renewed or overturned with each new court battle, regulation, or arrest.&nbsp; Each nation's enforcement of these issues differs.&nbsp; Any criticism of Chinese government <a href="http://www.pen.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/3029/prmID/172" target="_blank">will get you imprisoned</a>.&nbsp; Not here in the U.S.&nbsp; Chuck Norris can say <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=91103" target="_blank">states are on the road to secession,</a> which he will support, and he is free to go about his business.&nbsp; That may or may not be because he is Chuck Norris.&nbsp; The Japanese, who are apparently allowed to <a href="http://warmingglow.uproxx.com/2009/10/ha-ha-good-one-japan" target="_blank">inflict psychological trauma</a> as a television prank, will <a href="http://www.geek.com/articles/games/left-4-dead-cover-art-censored-in-japan-and-germany-20081226/" target="_blank">censor mild gore</a>--which seems to be the complete opposite of here.<br /><br /><br />America has more freedom of speech than any other nation.&nbsp; We can say or create just about anything without fear of being arrested for it. We no longer ban books as even the United Kingdom, our English-speaking cousins, <a href="http://johnbakersblog.co.uk/banned-books-in-the-uk/" target="_blank">still do</a>.&nbsp; The only films denied American distribution are those whose content <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tin_Drum_%28film%29" target="_blank">supposedly break laws</a>; and then we have the court system to challenge unjust enforcement. Unfettered freedom of speech, more than any other reason, is why I love America.&nbsp; The law of the land protects us from unreasonable government interference in our daily lives.&nbsp; We are not only able to say what we think, we are encouraged to do so.&nbsp; Our founding fathers made federal laws to ensure no one could take away our right to open dissent.<br /><br />There comes a price with such freedom.&nbsp; For instance, we have to put up with the KKK and Neo-Nazis <a href="http://www.godhatesfags.com/" target="_blank">and worse</a>.&nbsp; Then there is that subtle, erosive danger I talked about.&nbsp; In the cloudy, less fanatical area between activism and public endangerment exists Jenny McCarthy, a woman hellbent on spreading a contradictory message of support and encouragement that undoubtedly causes harm.&nbsp; Her mission is to spread the word that vaccinations cause autism.&nbsp; She has hit the talk show circuits, public speaking events, published articles, and visited families to get the word out.&nbsp; She also does all that after she's been proven wrong.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1967796-1,00.html" target="_blank">Time Magazine explained</a> why Jenny McCarthy is wrong and even considered a national health risk. Jenny McCarthy fired back with an <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenny-mccarthy/whos-afraid-of-the-truth_b_490918.html" target="_blank">article </a>that accuses 22 studies, Time Magazine, research experts, the CDC, and <i>all </i>pediatricians of not only being wrong, but operating in lock-step to a diabolical money-making conspiracy.&nbsp; No matter how much evidence is stacked in front of her, not even when she's been presented with the evidence that she is helping cause a resurgence in horrible diseases once controlled by vaccinations, she will not back down.&nbsp; She has invested her reputation and so much of her time and effort into this crusade that she can't turn back, not even when confronted with proof of her folly.<br /><br />She's not alone in this crusade, of course.&nbsp; Otherwise, she'd just be a lunatic howling at the moon.&nbsp; She has support from parents of autistic children, suffering from heartbreak and searching for a tangible target, who want nothing more than to blame someone for the horrible affliction.&nbsp; Parents got their first opportunity to blame someone when <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673697110960/fulltext" target="_blank">a preliminary study</a> was released in Britain linking Autism to an MMR Vaccine with mercury in it (since abandoned).&nbsp; Britain halted MMR vaccines and measles came back.&nbsp; The study was contradicted by more thorough research and the original findings were retracted.&nbsp; But it was too late.&nbsp; Mania had gripped too many celebrities, who then proceeded to accuse the American government of administering unsafe vaccinations. It's comical, but true: <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nations_experts_give_up" target="_blank">Americans listen to celebrities more than scientists</a>.&nbsp; Now, after billions of dollars in research revealing <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jun/06-why-does-vaccine-autism-controversy-live-on" target="_blank">definitive proof</a> that vaccines don't cause autism, celebrities like Jenny McCarthy still won't shut up.<br /><br />What may actually be worse, Jenny McCarthy encourages parents to seek out untested alternative treatment.&nbsp; These parents dish out several thousands of dollars to quacks and gurus based on a false hope of their children recovering from an (as yet) irreversible disease. Now, she's not only helping expose the nation to previously contained diseases, she's also helping put parents into financial trouble during a recession.<br /><br />This situation causes me to ask myself, when does campaigning for a cause turn into child endangerment?&nbsp; Jenny McCarthy has become a health risk. Unless she refuses to save the life of her child by getting immunizations, I don't think the government should restrain her from saying what she feels, but nor is this a situation where the rest of us can "agree to disagree."&nbsp; Her opinion should not be respected.&nbsp; She should be booed from her soapbox.&nbsp; Objections should be raised every time she utters a word about vaccination.&nbsp; Fighting someone like Jenny McCarthy is difficult because she appeals to people's emotions.&nbsp; Emotions are easily manipulated and often override intellect. <a href="http://www.google.com/books?id=Yh-ajmMQzv8C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=ac/dc&amp;ei=YvabS_X9MpTMlQTR27niCQ&amp;cd=3#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false" target="_blank">Just ask Nikola Tesla</a>.&nbsp; What McCarthy is saying is perfectly false, but it isn't stopping people from listening.&nbsp; Maybe a more direct emotional appeal will help the truth sink into the unconvinced minds: Jenny McCarthy will <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/" target="_blank">kill your children</a>.http://blog.onehitkill.com/2010/03/jenny-mccarthy-gets-her-moneys-worth.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Aaron Reese)2